RE: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> From: Dassa [mailto:dassa@dhs.org]
> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 12:31 AM
> 
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> On Behalf Of Roeland Meyer
> |> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 4:46 PM
> |>
> |> > From: Dassa [mailto:dassa@dhs.org]
> |> > Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 11:12 PM
> |>
> |> > Yes, anyone can create additions to the name space that
> |> > follow the guidelines.  Creating additional TLD's does not.
> |> > Hence those people created their own name spaces so they
> |> > could create and use their own TLD's.  They opted out of
> |> > the legacy system and created their own.
> |> > They have no authority within the legacy system and nor
> |> > should they.
> |>
> |> Please supply reasoning to back up this claim.
> 
> What claim are you refering to Roeland?  That anyone can create
> additions to the name space, this is done all the time with
> sub-domains.  That not everyone is allowed to add additional TLD's,
> that is an established fact.  

This is a fact that is amply disproven. The other TLDs exist. That is a
fact. There is no issue of "allow". The principle is; that which is not
specifically disallowed, is allowed. Believe it or not, that can be
considered the prime directive of the US Constitution, which is the defining
document of the USG, whose DOC actually manages the DOC root zone. It is
also one of the fundimental differences between the US and most other
governments. It allows individuals the maximum respect. That's the main
reason my family immigrated here, in 1960.

> ICANN currently has that delegated power, no one else. 

ICANN has a delegated power. It is not exclusive. There is no law, nor can
there be a law, that prevents someone operatiing of their own root server
systems or publishing their own root zone file, or for others to use it. If
there is one, under US law, please cite references. Further, the US is a
land of private property, as protected under the fourth Amendment, of the US
Constitution. The USG cannot dictate what I run on any of my hosts, my
networks, nor its interfaces. That is covered by the First Amendment of said
Constitution.

> That people created their own name space and additional TLD's within those
name
> spaces, established fact. 

True.

> That they opted out of the legacy system, established fact evidenced by
> their creating their own name spaces with TLD's not supported in the
> legacy system. 

There is no established link between your evidence and your fact. The
creation of additional names does not automatically exclude one from the
political system.

> That they have no authority within the legacy system,
> established fact. 

I disagree. Or are you claiming that ICANN is an exclusive, non-transparent,
club? By directive, it is otherwise. There are many documents to support
this (my) claim. My context is the entire name space and I am claiming that
the ICANN must consider ALL contexts, by directive from the USG, and not
just the context of the DOC root zone. The DOC, in creating new TLDs, is
encroaching on those other contexts wherein those TLDs are very much legally
valid (the legal business context). Are you, by extention, claiming that
non-DOC listed business is not a valid business? MHSC is a Delaware licensed
corporation. It is not listed with DOC. MHSC just sent off its IRS filings
last month. Should we not have done that? The logic you present here follows
exacttly such a path. It is in error.

> That they shouldn't have any authority, self
> evident as they opted out and have no control over the legacy system.

Circular argument. It only holds if the declaration above holds and it
doesn't.

> I can't see what claim you mean or reasoning you require.  The
> statement is self evident by looking at the facts behind the
> statement.

Go back to Calculus class. There is no such thing as a self-evident proof.
That's like trying to divide by zero. The inquisition used such logic for
300 years. It wasn't valid then either. Prove that 2+2=4. I can prove that
it doesn't AND that the result is NOT self-evident.

> BTW...I have no problem with people creating additional name spaces
> and making money off them or doing it as community effort.  If they
> can get the visibility necessary to replace the legacy system, good on
> them.  They haven't yet and are unlikely to.  So they are in reality,
> small players of limited scope compared to the legacy system.
> Creating a new name space doesn't give anyone any rights over the
> existing name spaces.

This is a significant subject that is not to be dictated by market forces
alone. There is a significant body of theory that needs to be answered here.
The problem is with us now. Many of us have been working on it. Ignoring it,
won't make it go away. BTW, let's not drop into irrelevent analogy along the
way.
--
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