RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|> -----Original Message-----
|> On Behalf Of JandL
|> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 11:34 PM
|> To: PacificRoot Hostmaster; Derek Conant
|> Cc: ga@dnso.org
|> Subject: Re: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML
|>
|>
|> I have been off-line for two days due a cable cut in this area
|> (Verizon).  I have been going through the 475 messages I just
|> received and found the strings very interesting, especially the
|> inference of misleading information on websites.
|>
|> I would like to know how "This is a NON-ICANN TLD" is misleading.
|> There are also instructions detailing how a user can see
|> the rest of the internet.
|>
|> I can also tell you that out of the hundreds of messages and phone
|> calls I field daily that I have yet to find a user who is confused
|> about this issue.  The only confusion I find is the
|> assumption or fear
|> that ICANN will "take" domain names from those who have
|> registered them once ICANN loads the duplicate .BIZ.

No, ICANN will not be taking the domain names when it loads .biz or
any other TLD into the legacy system.  The name spaces the current
alternative TLD's exist in is another entity to the legacy system.

|> The argument for the FTC is quite simple.  It is no more confusing
|> than the introduction of any service for which one is unfamiliar.
|> The really simple fact is there is no difference between .com and
|> .here in terms of functionality.  The only difference is
|> how to "see" them.  The confusion will come when there are two of
any TLD and
|> users will have no idea which one they see or where their
|> mail will go.
|>
|> It is NOT the inclusive name space TLDs or roots that will
|> cause this confusion.  It will be ICANN and DoC if they introduce
the
|> duplicates.

They are not introducing duplicates.  They would be loading TLD's into
the existing legacy name space that the alternative roots have
disdained and moved away from.

|> It is not a marketing issue, Derek.  It is a technical
|> one.  To say that a business with a small market share cannot grow
to have a
|> large market share and therefore has no right to exist would
|> eliminate any reason or possibility for any startup in a
|> free market.
|> That is patently ridiculous, counter to the founding of the US and
|> against the US constitution.

What I find ridiculous is that people would attempt to claim that
alternative root name spaces have any control over the legacy name
space.  It is a marketing issue.  It is all about competition.  If the
alternative name spaces have enough visibility they can overshadow the
legacy root system.  Currently they do not and are attempting to
restrict the legacy name space so that they can continue their
marketing strategies.

|> I cannot speak for other TLD holders, but I can say that ARNI has
|> not mislead registrants and has gone well beyond any reasonable
|> efforts to ensure that registrants have complete knowledge of what
|> we're all about.  If I am questioned wrt to our operation, I am
|> completely open about it.  There is nothing clandestine about
|> registering a dotBIZ domain.  You register it, it works
|> and to access it on the web, you need to point your PC to the
appropriate
|> servers.  No big deal.
|>
|> I have written you off list wrt to the simple bottom line.
|>  There will be a chaotic situation if DoC enters a duplicate into
the
|> USG root.

Again, they are not introducing a duplicate.  It is a new entry into
the legacy name space.  One, the alternative roots opted out of and
then went and set up their own name spaces.  It may cause some
fracturing of the Internet but personally I doubt it would last long.
The alternative root name spaces can not compete against the legacy
root system as they do not have the visibility.  They may or may not
survive.  Again, this is a competition issue.  If the alternative name
spaces can gather enough support and increase their visibility, they
will win otherwise, they will remain the small players they are now in
comparision to the legacy name space.

|> That is a given.  The misinformation is coming from ICANN and not
|> ARNI.  It is a FUD campaign.  Hopefully, our uneduated elected
|> members will find out prior to making any huge mistakes
|> like they did  with the ACPA, but we can only hope.  This mistake
could have
|> much wider repercussions and market share has little to do
|> with it.

Actually it is all about market share.  The legacy name space has the
lions share.  The alternative name spaces have attempted to collect
some of it but have not been too sucessful.

|> You see, a collison is a collison whether it's between 4000 or 4
|> million.  When mail meant for a subsidiary of a large company goes
|> to the duplicate small company or vice versa, it is mail
|> going to the wrong recipient, isn't it?  How would you like your
bank
|> information sent to the wrong recipient because an ISP is pointing
to
|> particular servers?  Worse, how about your medical records?  Want
to
|> guarantee that every medical professional is dialed up to an ISP
|> pointing to the DoC root?  I can tell you right now that
|> it is not the case.

That is the type of risk that all users of the alternative name spaces
have taken.  Have you informed them this was a possibility and has
been from the beginning?  I doubt it.  When the alternative name
spaces opted out of the legacy system and started marketing their own
TLD's, outside of the legacy system, this was always a possibility.  I
suspect the users of the alternative name spaces will desert in droves
once the implications are known to them.  I'm sure the majority would
rather be visible to the 99.95 (or whatever the figure is) percent of
the Internet that use the legacy system and not only visible to the
minority that use the alternative name spaces.

|> I will say it again.  If there is no duplicate in the USG
|> root, then the mail will either go to the correct recipient or
bounce.
|> If there is a duplicate, there is no telling where it will go
because it
|> will depend on whose servers one points to either individually or
via ISP
|> connectivity.  I can also tell you that assuming less than one
|> percent is way off, especially outside the US.  It is climbing
|> geometrically and indications are that it exceeds 5% without
|> new.net.  That's more than a 500 percent increase in less than 2
|> years with most of the increase in the last year.  The most common
|> comments I receive are "gosh, this has opened a whole new world
|> for me. I didn't know this existed until recently."

Still a very small percentage.  And for users making business
decisions on which name space to use significant.  However, there will
not be a duplicate in the legacy root.  There may be duplication in
the alternative name spaces but market forces will most likely cause
them to close the duplication off.  If I was a user of the alternative
name spaces I know I would be looking very seriously at the issue and
would go where I would have the most visibility.
|>
|> As more of the public becomes informed, the number of users
|> choosing to point to the inclusive name space will increase
|> accordingly.  We are still seeing the infancy of the
|> evolution of the Internet.

If you believe this, good for you.  I don't.  I see the alternative
name spaces loosing users once the full implications become known and
the market falling apart in this area.  I do not say this is a good
thing, just what I see happening.  There has not been enough
substantial activity to increase the visibility of the alternative
name spaces, they just don't have the market share to be an effective
competitor.  That may change but I doubt it whilst the current way of
doing things is evident.  I do think we will continue to have
alternative name spaces but really don't expect them to be competitive
with the legacy name space.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

--
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