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

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: owner-ga-roots@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga-roots@dnso.org]On Behalf
|> Of Patrick Corliss
|> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 5:00 AM
|> To: [ga-roots]
|> Subject: Re: [ga-roots] Community Roots or Red Herrings
|>
|>
|> 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.

The acknowledgement of any such right to use the public resources is still
to be discussed.  It is not included in the proposed policy as written.  It
is also a different issue to the newly formed root TLD's offered by other
than the legacy root.

|> (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).

There is no nonsense in there being multiple name spaces, that is what we
currently have.  The legacy root name space is the one accepted by the
majority of users.  Other name spaces offering access to the legacy root
and including additional TLD's does not mean those name spaces are all a
part of the same name space as the legacy root.  You talk about red
herrings from me and throw this in the pot?  Of course there are multiple
name spaces.  Some do not even link into and are not visible from the
Internet name spaces.  I am currently on one such name space.  It is
totally under my control and I use the TLD .dhs.  I have also noted a
member of the GA has recently initiated an application to register this TLD
under one of the so called alternative roots.  Ah, you say, the TLD you use
isn't accessible from the Internet and doesn't count.  If users connect to
name servers I provide it would be accessible, much like others.  That it
doesn't currently may be a criteria to use in judging if it should be taken
into consideration or it might not.  BTW...I have used this TLD for over 2
years.

|> (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.

That is one reason for discussing the issue and bringing all the issues
into the open.  Prevention of Internet Fracturing may require for some
short term discomfort to achieve long term stability.  Rushing into a quick
fix may not be the answer.  There needs to be substantial discussion and
clarification to work out what exactly ICANN should be doing to establish
stability and prevent future fracturing.  In any controversy, there are two
sides.  Rarely, is just one totally at fault.

|> (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.

Certainly.

|> (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.

There is a big difference between foster and enforce.  We currently have a
few players who do not recognise the unique root.  ICANN has limited means
to foster compliance.  We are currently seeing one of the means ICANN has
at its disposal, without regard for the intention.  By introducing .biz,
the issue is being forced and the matter will be forced to a resolution.
With its larger user base and backing, it would be possible for ICANN to
enforce compliance in this regard.  I am not convinced that ICANN does NOT
have a policy with regard to this issue.  Recent events would seem to
indicate it does.

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

Understanding an analysis does not convey agreement on all points.  Nor
does understanding the other viewpoint indicate agreement.

|> > 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.

Note, I said "and personal attacks", I did not qualify the discounting of
my views as red herrings under that banner.

|> <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.

How can you say that.  You suggest co-operation and then declare that
discussing the structures of the parties as being off limits, not likely to
foster co-operation I would say.  How can anyone decide if there should be
co-operation unless there is complete understanding of the functions and
structures involving all parties.  Of course it is relevant to this
discussion.  We are not discussing abstract scenarios here, we are talking
practical issues that are already causing some instability.

|> > 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.

The difference you appear to be overlooking is who decides and how it is
decided to introduce new TLD's.  Also, as to how the authority is gained to
introduce new TLD's.

|> > 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.

Actually, if I didn't want to promote community structures I wouldn't be
involved in this forum at all.  It is after all a forum designed to promote
community involvement.  Community involvement is the fundamental theme for
all discussion on this and all the other GA forums.  Declaring such to be
not relevant is out of order.  It should also be noted that although I
offer alternative viewpoints to some declared here, I have not been
opposing "alternate" TLD's.  I have questioned their validity and will
continue to do so until such time as I see reasonable arguments compelling
me to accept another viewpoint.

|> > 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?

No, my concern in this regard is to who has the authority to alter the
legacy name space.  Personally I would like to see an International
non-profit organization having authority to control the name space, not
individuals with their commercial agendas.  I want to see the users control
the Internet and I do not see the "alternate, inclusive, competitive,
rogue, private" root operators providing that user control.  Ah, you say,
market forces will do that.  However, that is reactive and I would prefer
proactive participation at the root level and above.

|> 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.

This would appear to be your contention and not mine.  ICANN approved the
new TLD's.  ICANN is a body set up to function with community participation
and input.  We might argue it is not living up to the initial promises but
the fact remains it far outweighs the alternatives in this regard.

|> > 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.

Note, I did not say the operation of new TLD's need to be community based
but I must agree I like the idea.  It is not feasible now however.  I
contend the approval and initiation of new TLD's should and must be
community based.  And by this I mean the whole Internet community or at
least those who wish to participate.

|> > 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.

I have been keeping it simple for brevity.  If we accept there is only root
zone, then there is no such thing as other roots then.  The whole issue
dissolves down the pedantic plughole.  If we go with precise definitions,
only the legacy root exists and all others are pretenders.

|> > What exactly are the intentions of the other root operators?
|>
|> To be treated fairly.

That is not quite as it appears to me.  It appears they are attempting to
circumvent the current processes for the introduction of new TLD's into the
legacy root system.  The processes may be flawed and may require
improvements but the vast majority have been abiding by them.  Is it fair
to give others preferential treatment over the majority?  I agree, we all
want to be treated fairly, it would seem the main disagreement would be on
how to initiate fair treatment.  I suggest that working within the system
and making improvements from within is better than forcing conflict and
attempting to restructure from externally.


|> 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.

I find this stooping to personal comments offensive Patrick, especially
from one in a position of authority as you hold in the GA.

There is also a lot of difference between arguing and discussing.  I have
been attempting to promote discussion, the inclusion of personal comments
and highly emotive issues, makes a discussion degenerate to an argument.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

--
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