Re: [ga-roots] Re: Criminalization of alt roots

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Patrick and all,

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Thursday, May 03, 2001 7:34 AM (AEST), William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> > The root systems are entirely independent of each other, and there is
> > nothing which would require or mandate (or should for that matter)
> > that they must coordinate or recognize each other's TLDs.
>
> Leah says they should and you say they shouldn't.

  Well of course WXW would take the opposite view.  However this
does have some value.

>
>
> Given that there will, at least, be confusion, would you be kind enough to
> specify why ICANN should not have a policy?

  ICANN is dammed if it does and dammed if it doesn't take a policy view.
Right now it has chosen to be dammed if it doesn't.  Which gives ICANN
the future opportunity to change it's policy later.  However which ever
direction ICANN decides to take such a potential policy, will be central
in future DNS related matters.  Any policy that indicates either directly
or indirectly that ICANN does NOT wish to coordinate with and between
other existing roots structures or future root structures and other Registry's
for TLD's would seem to be less than cooperative on ICANN's part.  It
is clear IOHO [INEGroup] that such a potential policy would be a
blunder of huge proportions.

> It is not sufficient to say
> "the root systems are independent".  So are countries but they have
> international agreements.

  Yes, however Patrick, international agreements are not always adhered to
too the letter of those agreements as you well should know.

>
>
> One example is the Rules of the Sea for vessels in international waters.
> This seems like a sensible provision to avoid collisions at sea.

  Sensible yes.  However not always adhered to.

>
>
> > This entire subject is really that simple.
>
> Perhaps it is enough that ICANN states that its policy is to do nothing.
> Personally I think that would be short-sighted.

  Yes it is, see my comments above...

>  However, as I understand
> it, it's the GA's role to assist ICANN in it policy formulation.    Kent has
> suggested making it a criminal offence to run alt roots.

  Kents suggestion is one that it seems is a reflection of at least one of the
ICANN BoD members, Vint Cerf.  Such a situation would not likely pass
constitutional muster however.

>
>
> > We really didn't need a new mailing list to realize that.
>
> There is a problem.  There should be a policy.

  Yes but WXW's point here was not addressed by this remark...

>
>
> Regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html