Re: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Patrick
I think this mails perfectly shows why we need a dedicated ML, and I
ask you to coordinate with Danny, Roberto and Harald to have it in operations
ASAP before his discussion is out of control.

1. your first action as a co-Chair is to say you publish a private position.
     it would be much clearer on a dedicated ML where you would not be
     the one to monitor the discussion.

2. you use of a "alternate root" is improper to most of the RSC and does
     not help mutual peaceful and cooperative understanding of the
     different positions. It shows that we actually need some time for the
     different stakeholder to agree upon a language and get some mutual
     understanding. This should and cannot be archived at the GA level.

3. your emphatic claim that this is a struggle to death is probably true,
     but it is not IMHO happening on .biz. It is more complex and more
     involving. It is not political but structural. That iCANN does or does 
not
     implement a .biz-bis does not change the way the Internet is built
     and the consequences of such a behavior. What I mean is that
     .biz is not really important, what is important is that a structure like
     iCANN, its Staff, its BoD, the DoC, the Hill control etc..; might have
     developed and implement a doctrine allowing them to accept a collision
     in saying "this is not my cup of tea".

Again, the issue is not to day to discuss the Inclusive Name Space
management. But the way this GA may propose (most probably through
a dedicated SIG ML) the creation of a WG-INSM.

IMHO, the more we discuss the matter on the GA, the more we delay
the creation of a special interest ML and the more we delay a decision
about the WG.

Jefsey






On 08:55 14/04/01, Patrick Corliss said:
>THE FOLLOWING IS MY PERSONAL OPINION - NOT INTENDED TO REPRESENT
>THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF TLDA, auDA, ICANN OR ANY OTHER BODY
>
>Hi Sandy
>
>Good analysis.
>
> > I see ICANN dropping .biz as highly unlikely. It is a desirable name, 
> they'd
> > almost certainly be sued by the people they just gave it to, and 
> backing down
> > on the decision would make them look extremely foolish.
>
>ICANN has sheltered itself from being sued through the division of functions.
>They are not the ones loading .biz into the ICANN legacy root.  Cute trick !!
>
> > Methinks the people running the non-ICANN .biz should be trying to arrange
> > some sort of deal with the new ICANN .biz folks. The former presumably have
> > customers; the latter need customers. Maybe some sort of deal is possible.
>
>You don't quite get the power play here.  If ICANN can get .biz 
>operational they
>would effectively kill off the so-called alternate roots.  Who would invest
>money in setting up a TLD like .dog or .cat if they knew that ICANN could come
>along at any time and just usurp it?
>
>That's why the whole "alternative" community are united in their opposition.
>
>What people forget is the opposite argument.  If ICANN does NOT get .biz
>operational then ICANN is effectively beaten back from any alternate TLD which
>has been activated.  These are becoming increasingly numerous.  It would mean
>that ICANN's scope of operations would become more and more constrained over
>time.
>
>Both operators of .biz (legacy and alternate) are just pawns in a death
>struggle.
>
>It's more like the "cold war" where neither can win but neither can afford to
>lose.  Of  course, like the cold war, the struggle itself might cause one or
>other side to collapse internally.   If you look at it realistically, New.Net
>shows that it is not easy to call who will be the winner.
>
>As I have argued, 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 is certainly an appropriate policy reference to the General
>Assembly or a Working Group.
>
>Best regards
>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