Re: [ga-roots] Community Roots or Red Herrings

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@corliss.net>]

On Mon, 14 May 2001 21:30:38 +1000, Dassa wrote:
>
> Yes, there have been numerous posts and numerous opportunities for input
> that would show some reason why I and others should take any notice of any
> other root than the legacy root.  Unfortunately, there has not been any
> compelling reasons given nor has there been any attempt to develop a
> better understanding of the position some of the posters are holding.

The proposed policy that has been moved and seconded is very clear.  You
have indicated that you understand it.  All of the persons posting have
explained their positions.  These can be summarised as follows:

(1)    Some TLDs were around before ICANN and have as much right to share
the public resouces as ICANN does.  This is especially true internationally
e.g. in Australia where ICANN would be seen as a "foreign" corporation.

(2)    Where two TLDs collide there will be confusion, at least, in the DNS.
It is nonsense to argue that there are multiple names spaces.  All are
sharing the same resources (which are not owned by ICANN).

(3)    The "compelling reason" is that ICANN's charter is to prevent
fracture of the internet.  It has breached that by approving .biz as a new
TLD.  Colliding TLDs is a gowth phenomenon which is bound to become
critical in the near future.

(4)    ICANN has no policy on so-called "alternate root systems".   The
mandate of the DNSO is to provide such a policy.  This should be based on
consensus according to the by-laws.

(5)    A minimalist approach, acceptable to both sides, would be to agree
that there should be a unique root zone (however that is defined).  ICANN
should then foster compliance.

You clearly "understand" this analysis.  I think you should keep to the
point and explain whether you think these propositions are in error.

> Instead
> there have been attempts to discount my own viewpoint as a red herring and
> personal attacks.

A "personal attack" breaches the rules of list decorum.  Saying that you
have "laid a false trail" is fair comment and within these rules as I
understand them.

<snip>

> Personally I feel that knowledge of the management and structure behind
> the other roots is an important issue.

Whilst it may be an important issue, it is not relevant to this debate.

> I also consider if they are in it for purely commercial gain is important.

The fact that New.Net is a commercial operation is balanced by the fact that
Neulevel is a commercial operation.  It really is irrelevant to ICANN's
policy unless you advocate equal treatment for ALL registry-registrar
applicants.  You have certainly not put forward this as a proposition.

> Although I am not against commercial
> interests and indulge in some myself, I believe there are some places
> where they should not be welcomed.

<snip explanation of why you think that>

Fine.  At present they are not.  It is therefore not relevant to THIS
debate.  If you want to promote community structures, please don't
do it under the guise of opposing alternate TLDs.

> That is not to say there is not a place
> for commercial interests.  We already have them at various levels, I do
> not like the thought of them being in control of the root level however.

Perhaps that's the misconception.  Your presumption that a commercial root
operator will "control" the internet.  Focus on that point if you will.  Who
controls the internet?

But first can you explain how the companies who were approved the seven
new TLDs "control" the internet?  The official .BIZ no more "controls" the
internet than the alternate .BIZ.

> Personally, I would prefer them not to be at even the Registry level but
> that is an issue already closed.

You are re-opening it suggesting that new TLDs must be community based.

> And when talking about co-operation, just where is the line drawn, how is
> it intended to limit a free for all.  If ICANN develops a policy of
> allowing other roots into the legacy root, how is the criteria going to be
> set.

You cannot allow a "root" into a "root".  Your principal argument is based
on imprecise definitions.  We are discussing "one root zone" with multiple
TLDs.

> Management and the structures behind any such root to be allowed into
> the legacy root would be of paramount importance.  Which again, raises the
> issue of anarchy,

I grow weary of this.  Neither Neulevel or Verisign are anarchists.

<snip all the rest about anarchy>

> What exactly are the intentions of the other root operators?

To be treated fairly.

> Do they wish
> to be included in the legacy root system or do they wish to change the
> whole structure and continue to deviate from the unique root concept?

My proposed policy said "unique root zone".  No reason to say otherwise.

> If so . . .

<snip as hypothetical argument based on the "if so">

> There have been calls for co-operation but a lot of what I see are cloaked
> encouragements for submission to a new order that has not been explained
> or defined.

I will be happy to clarify any uncertainty when we get back on track.

> |> In this case "Beware the diversionary tactic".
>
> Yes, these come in many forms.  Often from those who cry out the loudest
> about red herrings and diversionary tactics.

Clearly a rhetorial remark after perhaps 20 to 30 emails talking about
community
roots.  Perhaps, like one of the Monty Python sketches, you just like to
argue.

> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

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