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

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > From: Dassa [mailto:dassa@dhs.org]
> > 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.

The "other TLDs" exist in non-ICANN/DOC/legacy/USG name-space. True, it is
allowed to create alternative namespaces. Trying to mix concepts is
misleading to say the least.
The fact that you can run a ".web",".per",".earth"... outside the legacy
roots gives no right to be included *IN* the legacy roots.
So far, all that you guys have proven is that you are allowed to run your
own root-zone (akin to playing in your own sandbox). What you keep trying to
push down the throats of everyone else (and keep trying to convince that
it's the other way around) is your own minority namespace.
You paint it as unfairness, unconstitutional, discrimination, restriction of
business, going against the principles on which the internet was built
etc... Whatever story fits best (usually with a hammer) on that particular
day.
So far the most memorable accomplishment of all of the "alternative"
root-zones and alternative TLDs has to slow down the enlargement process to
nearly a standstill (what was the date of the kickoff of discussions with
the original postel draft? circa '94 I think).

You say that which is not specifically disallowed is allowed. Quaint, but an
oversimplification. Show me one instance of a non-ccTLD being added to the
legacy roots in the past 4 years that proves your point. It hasn't happened.
All attempts have been purposefully blocked (most notable .web trying to sue
its way into the legacy root). I think we can conclude that your collective
efforts have been disallowed constantly and without fault up to the present
day (efforts of getting your info into the legacy roots). Your efforts of
running your own roots have, on the other hand, never been challenged. And,
btw, I hope you guys continue to run non-legacy roots, as it keeps the
legacy one awake.

> > 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.

And nobody is arguing against that. ICANN holds the delegated power to
control the legacy root. We are talking about who has the power to enter
information into the legacy root. You can continue to have your own
root-zone as you have demonstrated for a few years now. Note, it is YOUR
root-zone. You have so far demonstrated no right to impose YOUR data on
others. You have demonstrated that others have the RIGHT to consult what you
allow free access to, and you have demonstrated that you have the right to
publish that data. You are however trying to take it one step further and
obliging the legacy root-zone to include your data. That, as you know, is
overstepping your rights.

> > 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 created their own namespace is established fact. That you
can't run on two root-zones at the same time is also established fact. If
you run on a non-legacy root-zone, you have opted out (voluntarily) of the
legacy namespace. More so when I constantly hear the managers of alternative
root-zones affirming that they do not author from the ICANN namespace as
basis for their rootzones...

> > 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. 

On this one I'm with you Roeland (as demonstrated by the fact that nobody is
censoring your voice). However, your personal efforts to one side of ICANN
do NOT entitle you to a larger voice than anyone else (in many eyes that
discredits you, but that is always on a personal basis). Proportionately &
collectively, the alternative rootzone managers unfortunately seem to have a
rather larger voice than the less than .5% of people who actually are served
somewhat by their servers. This is unfair, but then again it seems that they
turn up more than the others (fanatics?).

> > 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.

Agree again with you Roeland. But that authority should have a .5% weight in
the vote in reality (of course, then we enter into problems of mob-rule
which these guys would complain about... but all voting systems have their
deficiencies).

Yours, John Broomfield.
--
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