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

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

|> -----Original Message-----
|> On Behalf Of Jefsey Morfin
|> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 11:39 PM
|> To: ga@dnso.org
|> Subject: RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML
|>
|>
|> Dear Dassa,
|> your points would be better made and constructive would you
|> consider the true nature of the things.
|>
|> - the name space is the entire spaceof names that the human being
|>    may come with.

Hello Jefsey

That is a generic interpretation of the term "name space" in the
context as used when referring to the legacy DNS and the so called
alternative DNS (I have since decided that the terms alternative and
inclusive do not actually apply in this situation and that the terms
"public" for the legacy DNS and "private" for the so call inclusive
name spaces are more appropriate) is not appropriate.  We are dealing
with practical issues here, not abstract theory.  The legacy DNS is
made up of interconnecting name spaces in a hierarchical structure.
It was built using cooperative methods as evidenced by the RFC
archives.  For those interested I suggest you read the following
RFC's, 236, 247, 280, 606, 623, 625, 627, 675, 752, 756, 774, 791,
799, 819, 830, 849, 881, 897 and 1591 for starters.  Then what ever
takes your interest from there.  I haven't reviewed them all as yet
myself.  The above however clearly evidence the cooperative efforts
and agreements that were reached to build the legacy DNS as we know it
today.

|> - that name space is distributed in various ways such as:
|>    - languages
|>    - indivudual names
|>    - trade marks
|>    etc...
|>    On the distribution is the DNS acceptable strings which use a
|>    limited character set and a repartition in several
|>    levels. Its name
|>    should be "DNS name space", but the religion dispute between
|>    some made it named "inclusive name space" when refering to
|>    the whole of it and "legacy name space" when refering to the
|>    portion of it directly managed by the iCANN.
|>
|> This is a mathematical analysis. You may want to change the
|> wording but you cannot change that there is a whole, a part of
|> that whole on technical criteria and a part of that sub-whole on
|> operationnal criteria.

It is not a mathematical analysis but an attempt to apply a
theoretical definition to a practical real world example that doesn't
fit the theory.  We are still seeing the development of standards for
the application of alternative character sets to the DNS, trade marks
do not currently impinge at the TLD's (which is the subject under
discussion), trademark issues, individual name issues, copyright, IP
property issues etc are all involved at the 2LD and higher levels.
Although they are a part of the name space (which ever one you use),
they are not applicable to this discussion.  My analysis defines the
legacy name space as the public name space and all others as private
name spaces.  Anyone can set up a private name space, the public name
space is however, tightly controlled.

|> I certainly accept that you may oppose to third parties to
|> operate part of the Inclusive Name Space and want it to be
|> exclusive to the iCANN. But to be understood and for your
|> points to be debatable better for you not to make the whole
|> a part of one its parts.

I have no objections to anyone running their own private name space,
either connected to the legacy DNS or totally independent.  But, I do
not accept them as being binding on the public legacy name space.
They are private name spaces, be it that the owners may sell or give
away access to the services to members of the public.

|> Also, you have mentionned that you understand that some
|> may want to make money out of the Name Space, implying
|> that non-legacy would target that. From experience this is
|> mostly the other way around: legacy TLDs look at their
|> bottom line (some time with big figures) while non-legacy TLDs
|> mostly look at their individual DN owners' freedom and best
|> interests.(when the ownership of the TLDs is notto the IDNHs
|> themselves).

I accept that the motives behind a great many of the private names
spaces is not totally financial in nature and a great many are
instigated and managed with high public ideals behind them.  I also
accept that a number have been instigated due to frustration with the
way the legacy name space is being managed.  A lot of others may
follow, myself included.  However, I deny the right of such break away
groups to force the legacy name space to take notice of the private
name spaces.

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