Re: [ga-roots] TLD's CONSENSUS

["L Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

On 22 May 2001, at 4:13, Eric Dierker wrote:

> Yes I said consensus.
> 
> Roots is a full discussion list now. It is viable with good participation
> and it lends itself to allowing those who have been involved in these
> matters a good opportunity to bring awareness to those of us who have not.
> The TLDA is moving forward and with only minimal assistance it will grow
> into a helpful association which will lead to further understanding and
> cooperation and therefor stability on the Internet.
> 
> I think that we agree that the rot controlled by ICANN is not the only
> root. That we have alternatives. I think that we all agree that in varying
> degrees the alternatives are viable and present different solutions for
> different needs. I think that we all agree that ICANN as an organization
> should not act antogonistic toward other TLD's in which it is not in
> control.
> 
> NON-CONSENSUS OR CONSENSUS
> 
> I am really bummed out that one of the new gTLDs being released through
> ICANN and the DOC is dotBIZ, I am even so radical to think it an affront on
> Belize where I have spent great times and appreciate their work on
> developing their internet. You all know I want to rant against the
> "affiliations" of the owners of the new gTLDs, but I will not digress.
> 
> But do we really have a problem. There is a huge market chain called Von's
> here in California, I also know a small grocery where a second generation
> ethnic minority runs his father's business named Von's. I go to Von's for a
> different reason than I go to Von's; if you get my point. At three in the
> morning I could get medicine for my children at Von's, but after church on
> sunday I could get the freshest flowers, avocados and strawberries at
> Von's. I am certainly glad they have both been there.

The fallacy with this example is that Von's and Von's can coexist 
without a technical problem of shopping at one store and receiving 
goods from the other, or having products delivered to the wrong 
customer.  You walk into the grocery store, purchase your goods and 
leave.  If you send a check to the grocery store at that address, it will 
get there (unless the postal carrier personally messes up of course).  
The address is unique, including the zip code.

With a duplicate TLD, however, you can send a message to a domain 
name but there can be two addresses (IP addresses) for the same 
name.  Your message will go to either one and you will not know for 
sure who will get it.  If you point to an address (URL) on the web, you 
will not know whether you have reached the "store" of your choice 
because there are duplicates.

The DNS is not something that can be compared to any other naming 
or addressing system.  It is not an index and cannot have duplications 
of specific character strings at any point in the hierarchy.  Therefore, 
while you could have vons.biz and vons.ebiz or vons.com, vons.net, 
vons.name, vons.info or any other TLD, you cannot have two of vons.biz. 
 
Leah


> 
> We want both services available.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Dassa wrote:
> 
> > |> -----Original Message-----
> > |> On Behalf Of Simon Higgs
> > |> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 7:51 AM
> > |> To: ga-roots@dnso.org
> > |> Subject: RE: [ga-roots] TLD's
> > |>
> > |> Dassa's not here to create consensus. His sole agenda here
> > |> appears to be to disrupt any rational discussion (a more eloquent
> > version of |> Crispin/Crocker). He steadfastly ignores the true facts and
> > |> always finds an opposing opinion which defies logic and is always
> > stated as if it were |> factual. I suggest filtering him and ignore his
> > massively unproductive |> posts. Most lead down false trails and are
> > designed to be deliberately |> inflammatory.
> >
> > And this is your attempt at consensus?
> >
> > I have not been ignoring any facts but have been questioning the way some
> > people portray certain things.  I have also attempted to raise issues
> > that are of concern to a large number of others beside myself.  Because I
> > view things from a different perspective to yourself or others does not
> > necessarily mean my view is illogical or not factual.
> >
> > The ploy of attempting to get others to ignore a participant is old and
> > usually a last resort for someone who doesn't have any solid comments to
> > add to a discussion.
> >
> > But yourself and any others who may disagree with my opinions are free to
> > delete my posts or filter them out.  We all have that choice.
> >
> > It should be pointed out that not listening to opposite or alternative
> > views will often lead to a stagnation of your own views.
> >
> > 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
> 
> --
> 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
> 


--
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