Re: [ga] Letter to Dr. Vint Cerf
So is this a case of "reverse TLD hijacking?" Instead of mom and pop having
a domain name on which to post their grandchildren's refrigerator art, but which
name has commercial signicance so BIG BAD CORPORATION starts up the
UDRP or whatever, we have a TLD that after all these years likewise turns out
to have commercial significance, so ICANN sets out to duplicate it through its
own procedural clout?
Bill Lovell
L Gallegos wrote:
> On 8 May 2001, at 13:26, Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> >
> > Jefsey, I'm sure you didn't realize it, but you have made the strongest
> > case I have seen so far for my proposal that there should be legal
> > sanctions against the connection of alternate root system to the global
> > Internet. And of course, I don't speak for Dr Cerf in this matter. But
> > you have posted these comments far and wide, and indicate yourself that you
> > expect public response.
> >
> > Comments below:
> >
> > On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 07:56:26PM +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> > > Dear Mr. Chairman,
> > >
> > [...]
> >
> > > I have two questions. The first one is strategic to the Internet and the
> > > second is technical and legal. Both of them concern the decision of
> > > introducing a "bis.biz" TLD colliding with the existing ".biz" TLD.
> > >
> > > 1. the strategic question is the following.
> > >
> > > You cannot ignore that the possible support by the iCANN of a second .biz
> > > is opposed and is not therefore based upon consensus. This means that the
> > > iCANN is here going beyond its Charter which is to manage the Consensus.
> > > Some may argue that iCANN opponents are not representative and give fuel
> > > to an interesting theory of Consensus by exclusion. Others will respond -
> > > and I suppose you are among them - that bylaws give the iCANN the right
> > > to act without consensus should the motive or the urgency be good enough.
> >
> > Both are clearly true.
> >
> > > In all the ".biz" controversy we have heard many con and pros. There is
> > > however a pro we never heard until now and that we are eager to hear from
> > > you: what is that so important to the Internet about the ".biz" TLD? And
> > > what made you vote to take it away from Leah Gallagos?
> >
> > Nothing is being taken away from her. She chose to use an alternate
> > root system that was very unwisely connected to the global internet, and
> > she can continue to do so. However, her actions were irresponsible in that
> > they ignored a very large scale process that has been going on for years,
> > and she must take the consequences.
>
> Kent, that is about the most ridiculous statement I've read in a long
> time. .BIZ has been on the public net since 1995. Others have been
> there many years more (1985). I didn't introduce it and you know it. I
> got the delegation after it had been around for years. If ICANN had not
> endeavored to duplicate it, there would be no problem. If and when
> ICANN dupliates others, it will be just as bad. Talk about irresponsible
> behavior!
>
> >
> > > 2. The second question is both technical and legal. I will handle it
> > > through a case study.
> > >
> > > Background
> > >
> > > DNS timers, machine failures, mail service overloads, etc. do not permit
> > > to know which machine an e-mail will travel through. The iCANN excludes
> > > the augmented roots from its own root. The augmented roots include the
> > > whole inclusive name space, i.e. every non colliding TLD including
> > > iCANN's TLDs. It is not possible to foresee the root used by every
> > > machine on an e-mail path.
> > >
> > > In case of collision (the same TLD being used on different roots) this
> > > means that a mail bound to a given host under one root, may land on
> > > another host under another root.
> > >
> > > This is different from an error or of the hacking of the mail service.
> > > Here the mail service works perfectly: the final error is the result of
> > > the network misconfiguration which is the TLD collision.
> > >
> > > Description of the case (the use of IBM name is just for better
> > > understanding)
> > >
> > > 1) let suppose my name is Ian B. Martinez and I own ibm.biz on existing
> > > ".biz" service. 2) let suppose the DoC authorizes the iCANN to proceed
> > > with your own ".biz" TLD, named here after "bis.biz" for better
> > > understanding.
> > >
> > > Questions:
> > >
> > > 3) I send a mail to accounting@ibm.biz. Can you certify that that mail
> > > will always reach my own "accounting" mailbox on my own ibm.biz host (and
> > > not one under "bis.biz")?
> > >
> > > 4) the IBM Tax Advisor sends a mail to the IBM, Accounting VP at
> > > accounting@ibm.biz (i.e. bis.biz). Can you certify that his mail will
> > > never reach my own ibm.biz host?
> > >
> > > 5) can you certify the iCANN and the DoC are not legally responsible for
> > > a possible wrong delivery while they decided to create this
> > > misconfiguration?
> >
> > The misconfiguration is in creation of a .biz in an alternate root
> > system, and connecting that to the global Internet -- an action which
> > exposes one to all kinds of problems, not just the one you outline.
> >
> > > 6) I assume that I am the legitimate owner of the data I receive in my
> > > mailbox and I may freely disclose it to the press (BTW could be sent to
> > > me on purpose). Can you certify that the iCANN and the DoC will not be
> > > held responsible for the harm which might result to IBM?
> >
> > Actually, the entity that needs to worry about being held responsible is
> > the party who created an alternate TLD and advertised it.
> >
> > > 7) if a mail of mine was received by another party and disclosed due to
> > > the collision iCANN would have advised to the DoC, who would you advise
> > > me to sue?
> >
> > The operator of the .biz that is operating in an alternate root. Such
> > operation is in direct contradiction to the best technical advice available
> > (RFC 2826), and it is clearly irresponsible to operate in contradiction to
> > such authoritative advice. I am not a lawyer, but in a US court, at least,
> > willfully ignoring such important and widely known information would be
> > extremely damaging -- worse than mere negligence.
>
> The negligence is on the part of ICANN since they were aware of the
> existence of .BIZ and were fully aware of the consequences of
> duplicating it. As usual, you are reversing the situation. It's rather like
> the cheater accusing the spouse of cheating to cover his own
> misbehavior. Happens all the time. .BIZ pre-existed ICANN's dupe.
> Simple.
>
> Once more, Kent. The DNS is singular. Roots are not. Roots are not
> the name space. DNS is. Most of the kids in school can think that
> through.
>
> >
> > If I were Ms Gellagos, I would be thinking very hard about this.
>
> Careful, Kent. And my name is spelled Gallegos, thank you.
>
> >
> > --
> > Kent Crispin "Be good, and you will be
> > kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> > --
> > 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
--
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
|