Re: [ga-roots] was: Re[2]: [ga-icann] interesting California law to consider

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

The fundamental problem here seems to be the aura that is given
to the term "legacy," as though that meant writ by the hand of God
on stone tablets held by Moses (at least among Christians). That's
merely what turned out to be a historic opener, and holds no sacred
position whatever. (ICANN, of course, would have it be sacred.)
(On the substance, copying is copying, whether done by ICANN or
"Mom and Pop."  ICANN is after .biz, which happens already to
be taken.)

Bill Lovell

L Gallegos wrote:

> This sounds like it should really be in ga-roots at this point, so I'm
> posting it there.
>
> On 17 Jun 2001, at 12:30, Dassa wrote:
>
> > |> -----Original Message-----
> > |> From: owner-ga-icann@dnso.org On Behalf Of NameCritic
> > |> Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2001 11:41 AM
> > |> To: dassa@dhs.org
> > |> Cc: ga - icann
> > |> Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga-icann] interesting California law to consider
> >
> > |> WalMart moving in next to a small shop doesn't suggest the shop owner
> > close
> > |> up either but that is the result and when you do that on a consistant
> > basis
> > |> unfair business practices does come into play.
> >
> > Except that in the situation we are talking about is equilivent to the
> > small shops opening up next to WalMart and then complaining about Walmart
> > being there and having similar products to those introduced in the new
> > shops.  The analogy doesn't support the claim and is actually in support of
> > ICANN.
>
> No we're not, Dassa.  We're talking about Walmart moving in next
> to the mom & pop store and using their unique products as their
> own.  Mom & Pop have not stolen Wal-mart, Wal-mart has stolen
> Mom&Pop.  Mom&Pop can't have a burger named Whopper or
> BigMac and Burger King cant' have Mom&Pop's Papaburger.
> They're all burgers, but have distinct names.
>
> If the new shops you metioned already have a unique product and
> WalMart copied them, there would be a problem and WalMart
> would be in the wrong.  They could have a similar product, but not
> the identical one.
>
> We have a unique product - .BIZ.  ICANN is wrong to duplicate it.
> The size of the *store* does not matter.  It could be thrift store or a
> department chain.
>
> >
> >
> > |> You don't see that as one-sided? If the alt roots created a .com they
> > would
> > |> be wrong, but if ICANN does the same to a dot biz it's ok? Do you reread
> > |> your own posts?
> >
> > Did you read what was written?  I didn't say the alt.roots creating a .com
> > would be wrong (although I think it would be suicidal).
>
> It would be wrong, Dassa.  That TLD is held by DoC.  It is live and
> active.  Duplicating it would be not only unfair, but bad for the users
> and the DNS.  The same holds true for .BIZ duplication by ICANN.
>
>  If one did, they
> > would have to be careful not to imping on the legacy name space and market
> > it appropriately.
>
> One day, you and the ICANNites who use the mantra that "we
> have our name space and you have yours" will have to do a 180.
> There is only one DNS and one name space.  People are
> beginning to catch on to that and even the BoD has rather reversed
> its statements.  The reason that no one in the alt.roots has
> duplicated .com is that duplication is technically bad, period.  The
> root managers have been working diligently to help resolve conflicts
> that have existed in the name space in order to avoid those
> technical problems.  Now ICANN has exacerbated it on a grand
> scale.
>
> The more you and others use the mantra, the more duplication you
> will see.  You are encouraging it with your words while we are
> discouraging it and have been discouraging it all along.
>
>  The main problem we have at present is the alt.roots
> > trying to muscle in on the legacy name space.
>
> Huh?  There is a legacy root system, Dassa and a legacy
> rootzone.  It is in the public name space.  The name space is
> global and open to all.  If it were to close, there would be even
> more problems, more fragmentation, less access for users.
> Nameservers are accessible via nslookup.  Anyone can establish a
> root and millions do on their own home computers.  The
> technology is built that way and it is good.  People  have choice
> and can include any TLDs they choose to resolve. TCP/IP opened
> communcations to the world.  ICANN's saying it has its own name
> space cannot change the technology or the DNS.   Using
> fallacious arguments won't solve the problem either.  ICANN is
> duplicating existing TLDs and has said it will do so again.  ICANN
> will break the DNS for many millions of users.  That's fact.  The
> larger the market share, the more serious the problem with a
> collision.  ICANN is claiming it will be minimal because of the
> relative numbers of registrations.  All it takes is a few.  However,
> what will be said when there are 50,000 registrations, or 100,000 in
> the original .BIZ?
>
> If they maintain their
> > distinct name space and market it as such, there is no problem.
>
> You still maintain that the name space can be separated into yours and ours.  Oh well.
> You are using semantics to try to make a point, but the facts are
> still there.  There is one DNS = one name space.  Call it whatever
> you like.  A collision anywhere is a problem.  There are going to be
> a lot of problems.  Intimidation by ICANN is not going to stop the
> growth of the other TLDs or root operations, Dassa.  ICANN is just
> going to make things much worse.  The paradigm shift has begun.
> .BIZ is just the tip of the iceburg.
>
>  ICANN by
> > introducing a .biz is not interferring with the other name space, it does
> > not attempt to include alt.root name spaces into the legacy root.
>
> And?  That simply indicates that ICANN wishes to maintain an
> exclusive rootzone and cater to a select market.  That's fine as
> long as they do not duplicate any TLDs.  The other roots choose to
> offer users more, that's all.
>
> The only
> > conflict the introduction of .biz into the legacy root that may occur is if
> > alt.root operators try to maintain an inclusion of the legacy root name
> > space into their own.  To use your own analogy, the small shop owner trying
> > to build a shop that surrounds WallMart.
>
> And just how is a small shop going to surround WalMart?  No one
> is surrounding ICANN, Dassa.  Roots are public.  Rootzones are
> nothing more than indexes of TLDs.  Some just include a more
> comprehensive index.  If ICANN chooses to have a limited
> rootzone, then fine.  I think it is short sighted and exclusive, but it
> is a private root, after all, once DoC "gives" it to ICANN.  Just one
> more root system.  Of course, that is if DoC is able to just give it
> away.
>
> >
> > |> That is exactly where you miss the point. It doesn't NEED TO BENEFIT
> > ICANN!
> >
> > Please note I didn't state it had to benefit ICANN.  I too mentioned users
> > etc.  And I went further to state there has not been any arguments put
> > forward there are advantages for users that outweigh the disadvantages.
>
> Really??  Hmmm, the UDRP is for users?  I don't think so.  Neither
> is the WHOIS.  Neither are the rules that force users to adhere to
> by force of contracts with ICANN nor the restraints on business
> models.
>
> >
> > |> The policies are to benefit the users. These are not mega
> > |> corporations in commercial competition. If it was you would be correct.
> > This is
> > |> a nonprofit entity that is supposed to be acting on MY behalf and on the
> > |> behalf of all regular users of the Internet, but instead it is doing
> > just as
> > |> you stated, acting as if it were in a corporate battle for some market
> > share. You
> > |> somehow have gotten it in your head that this is what ICANN is
> > |> supposed to do. Therefore you defend corporate policies that belong
> > somewhere like
> > |> Verisign, AT&T, and GM. The United Way doesn't make a habit of crushing
> > |> smaller Nonprofits nor do they attempt to shut them out. That
> > |> is what ICANN should be following as a nonprofit model not following the
> > |> other corporate examples.
> >
> > No, you are attributing ideas to me that are not correct.  Although I see
> > no real problem with a non-profit operating along commercial lines.  They
> > are much more viable and vibrant by doing so.
> >
> > The main point is that the commercial operations of the alt.roots as they
> > now stand have no benefits for users that outweigh the disadvantages.
>
> Hmmm, free domain names in many tld's maybe?  No UDRP?
> Observance of national laws?  Good customer service?  Choice?
> Recognition of users' needs?  No charge for inclusion in the root?
> No interference with business models?  That sure doesn't sound
> like ICANN.
>
>  It
> > is my firm belief that ICANN, although slow to introduce new TLD's, offers
> > the best protection for users and provides the most stable and reliable
> > name space.
>
> That is ludicrous.  ICANN is about to damage the name space with
> a major collision and you say it provides a stable name space.
> And this is in the name of doing what is best for users.  Nothing
> could be farther from the truth.  ICANN is working for the major
> corporations and IP lobby.  If they were working for the users and
> stability, they would be including them, holding elections for the
> nine seats of the at-large and having dialog with the other TLDs and
> roots.  The FUD campaign may one day bite back.
> >
> > Why should ICANN assist and encourage commercial alt.root operations?  Why
> > should ICANN cooperate with alt.root operators?
> >
> > To promote competition?  We don't want competition at the name space level,
> > it is counter productive.  ICANN is introducing more TLD's and that process
> > should become more efficient in future.  There should be enough competition
> > at that level to satisfy all needs.
>
> Now it's competition?  How can that be if they are not real, if they
> are experimental, if they are not legitimate?  If they are, in fact,
> competition, then they are recognized.  Would it not be wiser,
> then, to converse and cooperate?  Perhaps there would not have to
> be competition.  Novel thought.  In addition, where did you get the
> idea that there should not be competition among registries?  What
> then, is happening with the "new" gTLDs?  That looks like
> competition to me.
>
> >
> > If someone has good arguments for the Internet to have open slather at the
> > name space level where anyone can set up a root server and establish
> > whatever TLD's they want (which we do have now) and for ICANN to cooperate
> > with those operators and include them into the legacy root (which we don't
> > have), I certainly would like to hear about them.
>
> That is not the indication we've seen, Dassa.  We've just seen
> diatribe about the villains in the alt community.  The advantages of
> a multiple distributed root have been stated many times.
> ICANNites have chosen to either ignore or twist it to make it
> appear unworkable when it is not only workable, but proven.
> Instead we have the DNS wars all over again.  How really foolish
> when it could be resolved so easily.  Ah, but then the
> multinationals would not have control.
>
> >
> > One thing people have to keep in mind.  Any policy ICANN establishes to
> > recognise any alt.root will cause a rush for others to get the same
> > benefits.
> >
>
> And that is bad?  Why?  It's called cooperation and collaboration.
> That is precisely what ICANN was supposed to accomplish in a
> bottom-up, open and transparent manner.  Hogwash.
>
> > Darryl (Dassa) Lynch
> >
>
> ~ Leah G ~
> --
> 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

--
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm


--
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