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

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

Harald and all,

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> At 21:57 29.05.2001 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
> >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?
>
> Leah does not have the power to threaten the integrity of the Internet, IMHO.
> new.net might have that power, given its larger budget.

  We {INEGroup] are in agreement with you on this.  And it should be
noted that nothing that Leah or Atlantic Root has done or is doing currently
would in any way threaten the integrity of the internet.  However it is
also important to note or recognize that the ICANN BoD's decision
to select .BIZ as one of the TLD's the ICANN has recommended to
the DOC/NTIA as and additional TLD registry, does in that an
.BIZ already exists and is in operation before such a selection
was determined by the ICANN BoD.... On the other hand,
it is obvious from the quickly expanding base and registration
of new Domain Names within the TLD's that New.Net is
providing, that the ICANN BoD in Marina Del Rea made
some poor judgments and poorly timed ones as well regarding
TLD's desired and needed by the stakeholder community.

>
> A change in ICANN's policy to accomodate "alternate" roots would, IMHO,
> threaten the integrity of the Internet naming system, as perceived by users.

  I t would seem obvious that the ever increasing number of registration
of Domain Names that New.Net has realized that this perception is
questionable at best.

>

>
>
> Whether you call one person/company raging at the operation of another
> company a conflict or not depends on your use of words.

  This would seem to be an argument in a circle.  A well recognized
logical fallacy...

>
>
> >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.")
>
> Your response:
>
> >I was amused by the CN-NIC response. It is IDENTICAL to the way New.net
> >describes what they are doing. The only possible difference is that CN-NIC
> >describes it as an "experiment" that is limited to a smaller population,
> >whereas New.net is clearly aiming at a mass market.
>
> My response:
>
> >A very important difference of presentation.
> >The CNNIC is (to my mind) anxious to be seen as wanting to be cooperative,
> >and would love nothing better than to have what they desire without having
> >to set up a separate root.
> >But if they have to do that, they want to know how it is done, and what
> >the consequences are - which means that they want to have run the experiment.
>
> I don't think you responded to that.
> If you want to quote me, at least do it accurately.
>
> >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?
>
> The position is not hard to grasp. It is also possible to disagree with.
>
> >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.
>
> If ICANN does a bad job, as measured by the users' response, alternate
> roots may thrive.

  Yes.  And it looks fairly evident with New.nets +16m registrations in it's
TLD's that the ICANN BoD is less than optimal at least...

> Or they may die because they are a fundamentally broken
> idea and add no benefit to the consumer, even if ICANN does not do its work
> well.

  A matter of conjecture at best here I would say...

>
>
> The main reason I continue mailing on the subject is because the ICANN
> bottom up process needs to have MY input as well as YOUR input; while I am
> strongly in favour of you having the ability to argue a point of view I
> disagree with, I am strongly OPPOSED to having that point of view
> represented as "the result of ICANN's bottom up policy".

  Than it would seem that you and those that share your view, are
intractable to a limited degree.  As such, there can be no bottom up
policy to that degree.  Which in essence means there really isn't
one.

>
>
> >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.
>
> you mean http://www.icann.org/correspondence/doc-to-icann-25may01.htm ?
>
> I didn't see much conflict represented there.

  Perhaps you missed from that letter the following:

"While I recognize the diversity of opinion within the Internet and intellectual
property communities on top level domain procedures and an attendant need to
maintain
Internet stability and security, competition and  selection are also critical
factors.
New TLD entrants represent that promise."

>
>
> >  The restiveness in Asia is another. What we
> >need to do is recognize facts.
>
> Asia is a convenient target because it is reasonably far away from most of
> the debaters, so assertions are not so easily checked.
> So far, I have seen ONLY Asian efforts to do IDN - and as I said, there has
> not yet been a technical question to which an alternate root is clearly the
> answer in that problem space.
>
> What we need to do is to recognize facts, and CHECK them.

  Agreed.  I hope that in the future you and others that seem to refrain form
doing so, would reconsider such lack there of.

>
>
> ....
>
> >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.
>
> And I don't want to listen to the 10246th repetition of the "alternate
> roots are good for you" mantra. But it doesn't seem that we have much choice.
>
> --
> 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