Re: [ga] Call for a Working Group

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

the debate in the past has been among a small group of people, did 
not take into consideration aspects beyond the WWW and did not 
inlcude the public.  It did not go anywhere because it was almost 
totally political and not technical.  Discussions rarely took into 
account the entire Internet.  The public was not informed because 
it meant little to the average user due to ignorance of the subject 
matter.

Well, people are more savvy and the issue is about to impact 
millions of people instantly.  It is important for the GA to consider it, 
since ICANN is at the heart of the problem by advocating an ostrich-
like and isolationist stance wrt to existing TLDs.

Ignoring the issues beyond simple registrations of domain names is 
absolutely outrageous.  It may not have been seen as a major issue 
prior to this because the majority of the public has no idea what is 
about to happen.  

To continue to insist that a situation does not exist just because 
you don't want it to exist is foolhardy.  The issue is duplication in 
the DNS.  It is serious and more so now that ICANN has determined 
that it doesn't matter; that it has a separate name space and that 
duplication is just fine and dandy as long as it is not in "their root."

This is so wrong.  You just go ahead and and foster the notion that 
nothing will be amiss when email goes haywire, nameservers are a 
mess and the internet stabiltiy is affected.  

And let's not forget that it is not the "alternate roots" who are 
advocating this duplication.  It is ICANN.  I don't know of even one 
root manager who would favor deliberate duplication (except ICANN 
and new.net).  They all know the consequences of doing so and are 
working to eliminate them.  They all also know that there can be 
only one registry for a TLD to avoid duplicates.  

Delaying tactic?  We've been screaming about duplication since 
ICANN began discussing the possibility of accepting applications for 
duplicates.  The GA may not have picked up the discussion, but it 
has been there.  ICANN has simply stubbornly ignored it.  Not one 
word was mentioned at the Melbourne meetings.  It was a non issue 
to the BoD.  In MDR, Mr. Kraaijenbrink was insistent that it didn't 
matter and that it should be ignored.  

You insist that working outside the ICANN framework means just 
that and that ICANN should ignore "independents."  Fine.  Let's see 
the result.  Let DoC enter a duplicate TLD.  But let's hold them 
responsible for the results of doing so, okay?  And let's hold ICANN 
responsible for facilitating and suggesting it and not doing anything 
to cooperate in the effort to prevent it.

Do I sound frustrated?  Well I am.  It amazes me that this political 
hot potato is more important to some than the real issues.

Leah


> At 01:08 PM 4/13/2001, Kendall Dawson wrote:
> >At 11:15 PM 4/12/2001 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
> >>However, there is some possibility that, given enough time and some
> >>clear guidance, such a group might achieve some consensus points
> >>that could bring about a temporary ceasefire...
> >
> >I agree with Milton on this. The NC should create a Working Group to
> >explore this. Introduction of new colliding TLDs (especially .BIZ)
> >should be put on hold until this WG has a chance to explore the
> >ramifications of alternate or competing roots.
> 
> 
> 1.  This is not a new topic.  It has been around for years.  Why is it
> only being pursued this late, with new ICANN registries about to be
> turned on?
> 
> 2.  The debate on this topic, over a period of years, has not produced
> an discernible, neither practical nor theoretical.  What is the basis
> for believing that anything other than further delay will be the
> result of this effort, now?
> 
> 3.  Why should the independent actions of registration activities of
> independent namespaces be of any concern to us?
> 
> This is exactly the sort of activity that suggests an interest in
> endless debate than in providing users with new TLDs...
> 
> d/
> 
> ----------
> 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