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

["Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>]

Harald:
See comments below.

>>> Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> 05/29/01 16:15 PM >>>
I certainly know that it is illegal to operate 900 MHz Wavelan cards in 
Europe, because it causes harmful interference with GSM phones; those bands 
have been set aside for GSM usage in Europe.
Similarly, it is illegal to operate 900/1800 MHz band GSM phones in the US, 
since it causes harmful interference with other usages for which those 
bands have been allocated.

MM replies:
Perfect. It proves my point: you understand technical
incompatibility but fail to appreciate the economic
and political factors which might lead to competing
standards. The key questions here: 

1. Why are those American products not 
compatible with the European frequency allocations?
Why is there not one global system? Should the technology competition be banned?

2. Would we get global wireless compatibility if 
America shouts at Europe, "I am the authoritative 
standard" and Europe shouts at America, "I am the 
authoritative standard"?? 

Harald:
to put it another way: Leah Gallegos is upset that .biz got allocated in 
the ICANN process that she chose not to participate in. Whether that 
constitutes a conflict or not is in the eye of the beholder.

MM:
You can't have it both ways. Either alternate roots
such as Leah's are threats to the integrity of the
Internet, or they are "not really conflicts." 
Which is it? 

Harald:
No problem has yet been identified where it is clear that separate roots is 
the solution. See the message from CNNIC I forwarded earlier.

MM:
I saw that message and pointed out to you that
CNNIC is doing exactly what New.net is doing.
(Your repl, as I recall, was "oh.")

Harald:
Well, aren't you [an enthusiastic proponent of 
abandoning a single root]? (only half kidding)
You certainly don't seem to be a proponent of defending it.

MM:
<sigh> 
I am a proponent of competition and freedom. 
ICANN stifles competition, WIPO is out to regulate
DNS to death, and ISPs and registries may defect from ICANN's root because of that. Is that position
so hard to grasp? 

If ICANN does a bad job of managing the root - if it's
too restrictive, unfair, and doesn't listen to the
consumers and suppliers and its own bottom up 
processes, alternate roots will thrive. New.net is
a signal that ICANN didn't do it right. The letter
from the new head of the Commerce Dept is another
such sign. The restiveness in Asia is another. What we 
need to do is recognize facts. 

Harald:
> >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.

Do you disagree with my characterization of your opinion?

MM:
Yes, slightly. Clearly, compatibility is better than 
incompatibility, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL. So in that
respect, it is preferable to eliminate all
name conflicts or barriers to connectivity on the
Internet. 

But in the real world, businesses and consumers
sacrifice compatibility for performance or features
all the time. 

It is a question of where we locate ourselves on the 
trade-off curve. We choose different points. 
You are willing to tolerate idiotic
policies, broken processes, stifled markets and
artificial scarcity to avoid any rupture of the DNS
root. I'm not. I think a little rupture here or there
would move the system to a better equilibrium, and
moreover that any rupture would heal rapidly.

I could be wrong. I'd appreciate a debate on the
merits of that question. I do not want to listen 
to the533rd repetition of the RFC 2826 mantra.
--MM

--
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