Re: A point of agreement (Re: [ga-roots] response to response to response)

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

WXW and all,

William X. Walsh wrote:

> Hello Roeland,
>
> One thing you missed.
>
> If a law was passed making alternative roots illegal (Something I'm
> not saying I agree with) it would be understood that current root and
> the contractors who are trusted with operating it, would receive
> exemption from antitrust and other relevant laws.

  This is likely correct.  I also have heard on the grapevine, so to speak
that some of the ICANN BoD members are seeking to get a bill introduced
to make other Root structures or Registries illegal in the US.  Someone
sent me a rough draft of the proposed legislation recently.  I am trying
to get it verified presently as to it's authenticity...

>
>
> Your statement "AND NO LAW CAN BE PASSED TO PREVENT IT" is not
> actually true.  There are no constitutional issues necessarily that
> would be prevent it.

  I don't believe this is correct WXW.  Have a competent legal opinion
on this statement?  If so, I would be interested in seeing the case law
and brief's that would support your contention here.  Otherwise,
I am inclined to, for now, go along with Roelands statement "As is".

>
>
> On Tuesday, May 29, 2001, 1:53:51 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>
> > The problem Harald, is that the ICANN doesn't have the authority to make
> > that stick and it cannot be given such authority, in the US, without
> > violating some fundimental civil rights (laws). Neither can the USG accede,
> > to ICANN, such power. They are prohibited by the US Constitution. ICANN *is*
> > a California corporation and the USG *does* control the root, currently. The
> > only way out of that dilemma is for ICANN to start a root registry and
> > publish their own inclusive root zone (something that I've been suggesting
> > for a while now). But, that makes the ICANN no better than any other
> > inclusive root registry. The only difference will be that the USG has
> > already given it a healthy startup boost.
>
> > It *still* does not preclude the appearance of competitive root registries
> > AND NO LAW CAN BE PASSED TO PREVENT IT. Regardless of what mr. Crispin would
> > like, the US is still not a totalitarian regime. Even were it so,
> > jurisdiction outside of the US cannot be compelled to recognise such a law.
> > We do not yet, have a world government and are not likely to have one in our
> > lifetimes.
>
> > Given that incontrovertible condition, multiple root zones are inevitable if
> > market forces present an attractive opportunity for them to exist. In this
> > case, the only strategy that makes sense is for ICANN to present such an
> > attractive value-proposition that the market is satisfied with their
> > offering and won't support other root zones.
>
> > In short, it becomes a monopoly. Well, in the US, there's a problem with
> > that too. It's called the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, among others. This means
> > that there will be at least two more root registries. There's more, history
> > has shown that any market will have at least 3-5% of it's members using
> > whatever competitor is available, simply to be cantankerous, if noting else.
> > What this means is that any monopolist can never gain more than 95% of a
> > given market. This may be sufficient for most historical monopolies, but it
> > means that multiple roots are a god given certainty. Whom else do you think
> > has that last 5% ... frosty the snowman? No sir, it's competitive root
> > registries and 5% of 5M names, times $6 bucks a whack, is still a sizable
> > chunk of change and Moore's law has dropped operations cost down to almost
> > zip ($0).
>
> > Business drives technology ... always has and always will. It is not the
> > place of the technologist to tell the market what it can do. The market will
> > flatly reject that. If the technologist doesn't/can't deliver then the
> > market will find another technologist that can/will. Kent Crispin's paper is
> > nothing more than a technologist's excuse for not getting the job done. If
> > the ICANN is stupid enough to accept it as gospel then it is finished. It's
> > unenforcible, unimplementable, and just plain dumb. To make matters worse,
> > he does not present a single problem that does not already have an
> > implemented solution. In short, it's almost pure FUD.
>
> > Thank you. I'm sorry about going on so long.
>
> >> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
> >> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 11:55 PM
> >>
> >> At 00:40 29.05.2001 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
> >> >Smart service providers won't offer highly
> >> >conflicted names, most consumers won't buy them,
> >> >and ISPs won't support them. They will converge, or
> >> >die. Domain names have no value otherwise. You
> >> >can't play with them, or hang them on your wall.
> >>
> >> Thanks for making it clear that you think a single root will
> >> eventually occur.
> >>
> >> It is clear that we have agreement even among those who do
> >> not want to
> >> admit it that there needs to be a way to get to the point
> >> where one name
> >> has only one resolution in any DNS service.
> >>
> >> ICANN has proposed one way: strict regulation of entries into
> >> a single
> >> root, no conflicts allowed.
> >> Name.space, ORSC and others have proposed another way: first
> >> come first
> >> served, talk until tired whenever conflicts occur.
> >> New.net has proposed a third way: sell what you want, and
> >> hope to get so
> >> many customers that the others won't dare challenge you.
> >>
> >> I personally think that ICANN's way is fairer and less
> >> painful than the
> >> other current proposals; I may be in a minority on that.
>
> > --
> > 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
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh
> mailto:william@userfriendly.com
> Owner, Userfriendly.com
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
>
> --
> 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