Re: [ga-roots] ICANN Policy -- revised version

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

On 18 Jun 2001, at 19:19, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2001-06-18 12:04:50 -0400, L Gallegos wrote:
> 
> >The post referred to creation of roots and TLDs, not SLD 
> >registrations.  There are some three thousand TLDs and several 
> >roots that are new and more coming all the time.  I am not saying
> >whether this is a good or bad thing, Dass, only that it is occurring.
> 
> >It also has nothing to do with whether any of the TLDs will be 
> >popular, open, restricted (chartered) or what business models will be
> >utilized.  You took the post and changed the focus of the response to
> >refer to SLDs.
> 
> That was me, not Dassa.
> 
> But anyway, I think that my question concerning the number of 
> registrations in your alternative TLD is one which should be 
> answered in order to be able to judge your remark on a TLD "rush" -
> because, of course, we could start to count all those misconfigured
> pseudo-intranets which are confusing SLDs and TLDs, and are certainly
> contributing to the TLD zoo.  However, this zoo's inhabitants are
> about as uninteresting for any ICANNesque deliberations as it can get.

First of all, I don't think it wise to use the damage caused by 
ICANN's introduction of a duplicate .BIZ as an example.  The 
confusion is not due to the pre-existence of the TLD, but to the 
duplication of it.

As for the "zoo" of TLDs being introduced to an automated 
rootzone, it is very much like any new market.  There will be some 
foolishness, but that will also plateau and the industry will settle 
down based on the very market that created it.  Whether there ar 
300 or 30,000 TLDs is really not the problem.  Technically, it will 
do just fine.  The problem is still the duplication of an operational 
TLD by ICANN.  

The statements made that it won't have much impact because of 
the number (present number) of registrations is fallacious in any 
case.  You don't know how much those numbers will increase, for 
one thing, and for another, it won't take many instances of email 
and hostname collisions to produce problems.  ICANN will spin it 
to appear as though it is the fault of those pre-existing TLDs.  
However, facts are really simple things.  ICANN is the duplicator, 
period.  The Internet is global.  The DNS is global.  No one entity 
can control it and cooperation is a necessity.

> 
> Also, a "rush" of alt.roots (and in TLDs being offered by these 
> alt.roots) which doesn't coincide with a corresponding rush of SLD
> registrations under these TLDs very much looks like a rush of childish
> fools trying to play Internic - which is, frankly, something ICANN
> should indeed ignore, and on which even the development of a III 3 b
> policy would be far too much effort and honor.

Another simple fact.  It's here.  It will continue and will grow for a 
time.  What it looks like is not the point.  Whether you or I or 
ICANN approves of it or likes it is immaterial.  The scenario exists 
and ICANN set the precedent for wholesale collisions.

I speak only for myself here.  However, I certainly would not expect 
ICANN to adopt every "create on the fly" TLD.  I don't even recall 
saying that ICANN should have to adopt all TLDs.  I have 
consistently said that ICANN should, under no circumstances 
duplicate an existing operational TLD.  I have also said that there 
should be dialog among all TLD holders to avoid and/or resolve 
collision issues.  I strongly believe that the refusal to do so will 
have negative and detrimental results.  Instead of finding common 
ground on which to communicate, ICANN has drawn a line in the 
sand, (Cohen and Lynn) and widened the casm.

I wish this were not so, but we all will have to deal with what is.

Leah


> 
> (I suppose that Kent and friends will subsume (almost?) all 
> alt.roots in this category.)
> 
> -- 
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> -- 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
> 


~ 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