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

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

Dassa, I'm not going to re-argue the same thing over and over 
again.  There is ONE NAME SPACE - ONE DNS.

There cannot be two of the same TLD string in the name space.  
Simple.  If there is an existing TLD and DoC enters another one it is 
a duplicate and it doesn't make any difference what semantics you 
choose to use for the roots.  The roots do not make any difference. 
 It is a duplicate TLD in the name space.  THE NAME SPACE.  End of 
story.  It makes no difference how many times people want to try 
to split it up so it sounds like separate DNS's.  It's one structure, 
one DNS and we all use it.

Leah


> |> -----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-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