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

["JandL" <jandl@jandl.com>]

Once more, you don't get it. ICANN is tasked with maintaining the 
stability of the internet.  Cooperating with the Internet community 
to strive toward a unified name space (not namespaces) fall within 
that role.  You seem to foster the notion that the Internet is made 
up of fragmented name spaces which is not the case.  It is a 
network of networks, all using the same DNS.  Any body that 
refuses to acknowledge this is not working to maintain the stability 
of the net.  It is working to further fragment it.  

You used the word namespaces - plural.  The  DNS is the DNS is the 
DNS is the DNS.  It is a single name space that can be easily 
fragmented by ICANN setting a precedent to do so.

I see no reason for ICANN to be any different from any other root in 
seeking to provide a collision free name space in cooperation with all 
TLD holders.  Nothing is perfect, but deliberately ignoring the issue 
is counter productive, to say the least.

Isolationism doesn't work.  It breeds discontent, frustration, distrust 
and even anger.  Many entities and countries are not content with 
ICANN's actions to protect a small segment of the Internet 
community.  This is not good for the net.

The simple fact that ICANN believes as you espouse is a hurdle that 
must be overcome.  No one asked for business to crop up as a 
result of the railroad either.  However, the railroad had to cooperate 
with the towns and businesses that grew up around it.  It had to 
stop at intersections within those towns, respect people and laws 
and certainly had to recognize that civilization was there in formerly 
desolate areas.  Had it not done so, there would have been chaos 
all along the rail lines.  Other rail companies grew as well and had to 
be recognized.  The major difference is that with the Internet, there 
are no static rail tracks.  It is free form - a good thing.

In every industry, there are businesses that come into being and 
grow along side the originators of that industry.  They either 
cooperate with the innovation and creation within the industry, or 
they end up going away.  

In this case, ICANN was created at the direction of the US 
Government under contract and oversight of the US Government.  
They have an agreement to perform in a certain manner.  They 
have broken that agreement in many ways.  In the case of the new 
TLDs, they will have broken two very important clauses of that 
agreement:  not harming entities or classes of entities and 
maintaining the stability of the Internet.  It would not have been 
difficult to fulfill the agreement by acknowledging that others exist 
and not trampling upon them.  ICANN's statements simply indicate 
an unwillingness to do so.  They prefer, instead, to use the familiar 
mantra that they are responsible for only "their" root rather than 
THE namespace.  There may just be a train wreck.

I DO expect ICANN to cooperate with other stewards of TLDs, for 
the good of the Internet.  As this issue comes to the foreground, 
we are hearing from those who are beginning to understand it and 
who agree that ICANN is not an island unto itself, but that it has a 
responsibility to the entire Internet and not just its own isolationist 
existence.

There is nothing to prevent any and all TLD holders and roots from 
acting independently.  Cooperation does not preclude independence.

Regards,

Leah

> The point that is missed in analyses, such as the one below, is that
> those in other roots chose to establish those roots (namespaces)
> independently of IANA/ICANN.  It therefore makes no sense at all to
> now expect IANA/ICANN to "coordinate" with those independent
> activities.
> 
> People who choose to work independently should be allowed and
> encouraged to operate in the mode they chose:  independent.
> 
> d/
> 
> At 12:37 PM 4/11/2001, JandL wrote:
> >This will be my last post in this thread, as it seems to be going
> >nowhere.
> >
> >It appears that the basic argument is the same one that ICANN
> >uses.  They are responsible for only "their root" and all others can
> >do as they please.  The fallacy here is due to the fact that there is
> >a singular name space which makes the technical argument one of
> >fragmentation of that name space.  Once ICANN divides it with a
> >collider, it is a done deal.
> 
> ----------
> Dave Crocker   <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
> Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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