[ga] Re: A point of agreement (Re: [ga-roots] response to response toresponse)

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Harald and all,

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> At 13:53 29.05.2001 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
>
> >No, we don't quite have a point of agreement yet. It seems that IAB still
> >doesn't seem to grasp the fact that it is dealing with a standards
> >competition phenomenon, and that ICANN management is hysterical.
>
> Two non-facts in one sentence - ie I don't agree with you on either point.
>
> >Tell me: do you think the integration of wireless communication into a
> >single global standard will occur if the GSM proponents insist that
> >THEY are the "authoritative" standard and all other technologies
> >are "harmful" and will cause incompatibility (with them)?
>
> I certainly know that it is illegal to operate 900 MHz Wavelan cards in
> Europe, because it causes harmful interference with GSM phones; those bands
> have been set aside for GSM usage in Europe.

  Reference please...

>
> Similarly, it is illegal to operate 900/1800 MHz band GSM phones in the US,
> since it causes harmful interference with other usages for which those
> bands have been allocated.

  Those are frequency bands, not specific technologies.  Ergo, your
argument
is not only not comparable to what Milton said, it isn't even relative
to his
argument, Harald.

>
>
> But I guess that you did not want to make the point that legal action is
> not only justified, but common, where harmful interference can be demonstrated.

  COmpeting technologies are not harmful if they provide a clear choice.
Yo have failed in your rebuttal, Harald to demonstrate that using
Miltons
example.  A frequency band is not a technology in and of itself. 
Multiple,
or SROOTS is.  Erco again, your argument is not relevant, and therefore
specifically invalid.

>
>
> >They would be correct, of course, that the existence of alternate
> >technologies will create interoperability problems. But no one is in a
> >position to eliminate competing technologies nor should they be.
> >How productive would it be to insist that no issues of policy or coordination
> >need to be considered?
> >
> >On the Names Council, Peter de Blanc and I have tried to initiate a
> >calm, deliberate, rational exploration of the problem of multiple roots.
>
> Which seems like a good thing, until we start disagreeing on the starting
> points.

  Please try to be specific on what "Starting Points" of which you
indirectly
refer, Harald.  Unless or until you can demonstrate that, you have not
substative argument.  Only FUD.

>
>
> >We simply wanted to start by recognising facts: New.net exists,
>
> ok, we agree on that.
>
> >there was a conflcit over .biz,
>
> to put it another way: Leah Gallegos is upset that .biz got allocated in
> the ICANN process that she chose not to participate in. Whether that
> constitutes a conflict or not is in the eye of the beholder.

  You mean the "Lottery" process?  Well I it wasn't a very good process,
and rigged from the get go.  It also was not a process that was fair to
any and all interested parties as required in the White Paper.  Why
pony up $50k non-refundable on a maybe regardless of whether your
proposal is a good one or not?  That's not good business or good policy.
So it comes a no surprise that Leah did not choose to participate in
a rigged game that was already pretty much predicted as to whom would
get
a nod from the ICANN BoD on a Registry contract opportunity!

>
>
> >  there are problems with the
> >implementation of internationalized domain names that is leading
> >to separate roots.
>
> No problem has yet been identified where it is clear that separate roots is
> the solution. See the message from CNNIC I forwarded earlier.
>
> >  Our initial phase was consciously constructed to avoid
> >statements of hard policy positions and to encourage education and
> >understanding of the ramifications of the issue.
> >
> >The reaction we have got? ICANN and IAB jumping up and down and screaming
> >"I am the authoritative standard by DEFINITION!" "The policy
> >is already set! There is nothing to discuss!" "Whoever raises this issue is
> >hostile to the stability of the Internet!" Stuart Lynn, who doesn't seem
> >to have understood a thing I've written, has publicly written that I am "an
> >enthusiastic proponent of abandoning a single root."
>
> Well, aren't you? (only half kidding)
> You certainly don't seem to be a proponent of defending it.
>
> >Clearly, the DNSO cannot take the first tiny steps toward policy
> >discussion without ICANN management deciding that it already
> >knows that the right policy is and ramming it down everyone's throats,
> >and it seems to have the active support of the IAB in this. If you
> >want points of agreement, work with your IAB colleagues to fix this.
>
> The DNSO, through this forum and others, has been running a discussion for
> a long time. However, neither side seems to be able to convince the other
> about even the most basic facts.
>
> Returning to my original posting:
>
> > >>> Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> 05/29/01 02:55AM >>>
> > >Thanks for making it clear that you think a single root will
> > eventually >occur.
> > >It is clear that we have agreement even among those who do not want to
> > >admit it that there needs to be a way to get to the point where one name
> > >has only one resolution in any DNS service.
>
> Do you disagree with my characterization of your opinion?
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
--
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