[ga] The Question is HOW

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

Hi Jefsey

I am surprised that you pass over the high level view expressed in my original
posting.  Little you have said addresses the problem of how we, as a community,
should deal with the issue that Harald Tveit Alverstrand has quite rightly
raised:

> > > as new.net has demonstrated, they WILL conflict, unless one has a
> > > governing body that ensures they don't. And if so - what is the
> > > improvement?

As you were getting diverted, I rephrased the issue to be more understandable:

> Harald's point is:  When there are no enforceable rules (such as you might
> have in a tightly controlled centraised system) how can you stop people
> setting up a new root zone which collides with all the others.

As Harald has commented to me privately (reproduced with kind permission):

"You have problems now dealing with individuals with nothing at stake but
personal pride.  How will you deal with people who have invested a million
dollars into a scheme, and are ready to spend another million to scheme against
you?"

As you are getting bogged down in semantics, an easy mistake to make, I will
simplify the question.   I really suggest (not "urge") that you address it.

The question is "HOW should we resolve the problem of people setting up
colliding TLDs:

        (a)  Technical
        (b)  Competition
        (c)  Negotiation, Co-operation
        (d)  Regulation
        (e)  Other ?"

It is my view that the answer to this question will determine the future of the
internet.  It will also allow us to determine the role of the General Assembly.

I am trying to be constructive and consensus building here.  I do apologise in
advance if it is my fault for not understanding your previous answers.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss


----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Corliss <patrick@quad.net.au>
To: Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>
Cc: Diane M. Boling, TLDA <dianeb@boling.org>; [GA] <ga@dnso.org>; Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 11:26 PM
Subject: [ga] ICANN as a Governing Body


> Hi Jefsey
>
> I'll start by changing the subject heading to align with the thread, if I may.
>
> On Sunday, April 01, 2001 10:19 AM (AEST), Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> Subject: Re: ITU and BIND configs (Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract)
>
> On 14:10 29/03/01, Harald Tveit Alvestrand said:
> > >as new.net has demonstrated, they WILL conflict, unless one has a
> > >governing body that ensures they don't. And if so - what is the
improvement?
> >
> > New.net is obviously a wrong example since they are not at root level. I am
> > surprised that the Chirman of the IEFT may use such a ploy to support his
> > point. Either your point is good and please use relevant example, or your
> > point is not and please do not try to confuse the issues.
>
> I think you are a little unfair to Harald here.  New.Net is a perfectly valid
> example as it does use a root zone and has got 18 colliders.  But even if it
> didn't, or was otherwise a poor example, Harald's substantive point remains
and
> must be addressed.  I've tackled it one way already - this is a different
> approach.
>
> Harald's point is:  When there are no enforceable rules (such as you might
have
> in a tightly controlled centraised system) how can you stop people setting up
a
> new root zone which collides with all the others.   Money talks, bulldust
walks.
>
> Unless and until the alternate root people, or their supporters, can develop a
> workable and effective solution to that problem then it will continue to be
> raised.  And that's fair.  In fact it is the core question to be addressed.
>
> Off the top of my head I can see several possible real-world approaches which,
> alone or in combination, could provide a result (if not a solution):
>
> (1)    Technical.  If you look at Alternic's TLD finder (say for ".com" or
> ".web") who you will see that it queries multiple roots:
> http://www.alternic.org/tldfinder.html
>
> This shows that it would be possible to write a browser which will produce a
> list of all domain names held by conflicting TLDs in whatever root they
reside.
> If I had some VC that's exactly what I would do.
>
> There are no doubt other technical solutions including overlaying a directory
> over the DNS as is done by Realnames.  I'm sure that will end up being the
> solution for multilingual domains.  And I would not discount your comments
> (which I haven't studied) on BIND software solutions.
>
> (2)    Competition.  Most tidy minded, well-organised people don't like this
> solution.  If is happening in all sorts of industries such as mobile or cell
> phones, music recording etc.  That is the competitive shake-out.  This is a
true
> case of the "last one left standing" (Danny Younger).
>
> (3)    Negotiation, Co-operation.  Although I hold out hopes for (1), this is
my
> favoured approach.  It is what ICANN should be doing and isn't.
>
> (4)    Regulation.  The final solution is one that's lying in wait for us.
It's
> what we might consider as the "brute force approach".  Any government will
give
> us a chance but sooner or later they'll get criticised by THEIR constituency,
> the voters.  Examples easily spring to mind but the most obvious is the
> Australian government's decision to ban online internet gambling.
>
> Why did they do that, you ask?  Well, all I can say is you have to understand
> the realpolitik (I hope that's the right word) in Australia.  That starts with
a
> genuine understanding of the Australian Constitution, the taxation system and
> the balancing of multiple opposing forces.  I am not kidding when I say it was
> an almost inevitable move.  And one not easy to revoke -- now or later.
>
> You think it's just IP?  Of course not.  Gambling, alcohol, pornography,
drugs,
> are all likely contenders for Government regulation.  Those who have proposed
a
> classification system for websites are just in advance of the times.  It will
> happen, sooner or later.  Sorry -- make that "it's already happening".
>
> All it needs now is for the ACCC (Australian regulator) to mark ICANN's card
as
> a monopoly and the whole house of cards will come tumbling down.  In an
extreme
> case it could mean the end of the whole cosy setup from the Board down to the
> DNSO constituencies.  That's a small dark cloud on the far horizon.
>
> And anybody who doesn't appreciate the danger needs to look closely at the
> nearest "funny farm" because I'd question their capacity for logical thought.
> For those who are better informed I'd recommend attending a few courses on
risk
> management.   Many in the IT industry are familiar with these concepts.
>
> I am confident that what we do here, today, in the General Assembly, will
stamp
> out the future for Eric Dierker's children and my yet-to-be-born granchildren.
>
> Sincerely
> Patrick Corliss
>
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>





--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html