RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

["Jeff Field" <jfield@aaaq.com>]

Comments below...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of JandL
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 9:49 PM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)
>
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: JandL [mailto:jandl@jandl.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 6:53 PM
> > > To: ga@dnso.org; jfield@aaaq.com
> > > Cc: jp@ADNS.NET
> > > Subject: RE: [ga] gTLD Constituency
> > >
> > >
> > > There is a technical collision in the name space.
> >
> > I respectfully disagree.  I can only conclude from your comments
> > below that it is a marketing collision (or problem), if anything.
> > Here's why I believe this to be so:
> >
> > Anyone that has registered a .biz domain name has been forewarned
> > that "the new top-level domains require that either you or your ISP
> > have UPGRADED from the functionally obsolete ICANN Legacy Namespace
> > to the ORSC INCLUSIVE NAMESPACE in order for you and your visitors
> > to see the domains you are about to register!".
> > (http://www.pacificroot.com/register.shtml)
> >
> > Of course, I would suggest that the use of the term "UPGRADED" in
> > the quote above is rather misleading to the consumer (FTC anyone?),
>
> It is an upgrade.  The legacy root is old and lacking.  Too access all
> the TLDs you do have to upgrade one way or another.

I disagree with your calling this an upgrade.  Here's why:

If you have five alternative roots, each containing all the ICANN TLDs, but
each containing a different set of additional TLDs, which alternative root
is the upgrade?  Seems to me it's more akin to the many different "flavors"
of UNIX in the marketplace, Solaris, Linux, BSDI, etc.  You really can't
call each of these flavors an upgrade to the original version of UNIX.  To
call the "ORSC INCLUSIVE NAMESPACE" an "upgrade" to the "ICANN Legacy
Namespace" is simply misleading.  And, frankly, it is just this sort of
misleading marketing that would keep me away from having anything to do with
a company that promotes their service this way.

> but
> > putting that aside for the moment, it seems to me that all the
> > alternative roots have to do is merely convince all the ISPs, etc.
> > to point to their root.  And, if all the ISPs, etc. want to do that,
> > fine.  If half want to point to ICANN's root and the other half want
> > to point to an alternative root, fine again.
>
> That's fine, as long as making that choice doesn't cause a problem.
> With a collider, it will.

What exactly is a collider and what is the problem that will be created?

>Marketing the root in this context is not
> the issue at all.  If it were the choice it is today, the marketing is
> simply to add to what you get from the ICANN root.  Nothing wrong
> there.
>
> I see this as a
> > marketing problem for the alternative roots, not a technical one for
> > the entire Internet.  And, unless someone can convince me that there
> > is indeed a technical problem here, I believe the term "collision"
> > is inappropriate in this context.  It conjures up images of failed
> > transmissions, data packets colliding, etc., none of which seem to
> > be at stake here.
>
> What you have is a fractured internet where that choice must be
> made.  As I said, up to now, carrying the DoC root intact has been
> standard.  With a duplicate TLD, it will now have to be a choice
> between versions of the TLD and duplicate domain names throughout the
> entire tree.  (however, if an ISP wanted to carry the PacificRoot and
> still carry the ICANN duplicate of .BIZ, it is easy to do so.  They
> just could not carry both).  The choice should not have to be made,
> however, and that is the problem.

I like choice.  For now I point my DNS to the ICANN root.  But I could still
be swayed to make another choice at some point in the future if there's a
compelling reason to do so.

> Consider a half dozen .coms throughout the world.  Shoot, why not a
> dozen?  He with the bucks for marketing causes the most confusion.
> Heck, why not?  ICANN is responsible for only the one root, right?
> And DoC has authority for only its versions of .com/net/org.  If they
> can duplicate .BIZ, I guess anyone can duplicate .com - multiple
> times.  Sheesh.

Yes, there is nothing to prevent someone from setting up a different root
with a different version of .com.  And, on the surface, that might sound
like a good idea.  I mean, heck, the ICANN .com has more than 20 million
registered names...if someone could get even 10% the size, that's still a
lot of registrations and still a lot of money.  I believe there is only one
thing preventing attempts at such a business model.  There's no VC money
around to fund it.  Why?  Ever hear of a snowball's chance in hell?

> I agree, though, that there is every chance that DoC will defy
> stability, Congress and everyone else and duplicate the TLD.  When
> things start getting messy and there is a lot of screaming, it will be
> too late.
>
> >
> > As for creating problems for the ISP and keeping track of two
> > different .biz names they might be hosting, well, tough...the ISPs
> > are just going to have to pick a horse to ride.
>
> If it were quite that simple, fine.  Let the ISPs scream bloody
> murder, I guess.  ( I don't really feel that way)  If I were an ISp
> and my cost for customer service went through the roof over it, I'd
> scream loud.  When they start with the lawsuits, it'll get more
> interesting, I'm sure.  You see, it's not the root choice that they
> will be fighting.  It's the mass confusion over how to host the
> domains.  Most domain name holders haven't a clue and many ISPs don't
> either.

And to that I say, nobody ever said this was a simple business.  Let the
market forces drive out the clueless ISPs.

> Do they want to ride the
> > one that currently has the most viewers or do they want to ride the
> > new kid on the block with potential but less viewers.  IMHO, it's a
> > business decision for the ISPs, etc., plain and simple.  It might
> > even be likened to the VHS/Betamax dilemma for VCR manufacturers,
> > tape manufacturers, etc. a couple decades ago.  Did they want to
> > ride the less used but supposedly more technically advanced Betamax
> > horse or did they want to ride the more popular but less technically
> > advanced VHS horse. (Note: My comment on whether VHS or Betamax was
> > more technically advanced should not be construed as a comment on
> > the technical capabilities of either the ICANN root or the
> > alternative roots.)
> >
> > Anyway, my suggestion to the alternative roots is to think and do
> > marketing, marketing, marketing.  And if they don't get busy real
> > soon, somebody new with deep marketing pockets just might show up
> > right around the corner, steal all the thunder, and create a third
> > .biz.  Oops, too late!  They already did!  New.Net, anyone?  (Okay,
> > okay...so new.net isn't offering .biz...yet!  Sorry to scare some of
> > you out there.  But there is not a thing in the world preventing
> > them from doing so if they wanted to.)
>
> This is true - today.  After all, New.net did it in abundance with 17
> colliding TLDs.  We haven't seen too much trouble yet, but wait until
> .biz is duplicated in the root with the 90 % market share.  That's
> when we might see it hit the fan in a big way.  Marketing is important
> for the Inclusive Name Space, for sure.  However, the collisions will
> become apparent if DoC does its thing.

The .biz domain names that are invisible to 99% (or whatever the correct
percentage happens to be) Internet population will still be invisible to 99%
of the Internet population after the "DoC does its thing".  There will be no
technical collisions.  The world will go on.  And, for the relatively few
.biz domain name registrants that will be more or less left holding the bag,
well...they were warned (or perhaps not given the above misleading marketing
statement).

Regards,

Jeff
--
jeff field
925-283-4083
jfield@aaaq.com

--
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