Re: [ga] VeriSign/RealNames - INEGroup predictions coming true..

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Jeff,
I feel you fail to see the real implication of the NSI move. This is not a 
new way around ICANN's inability to cope with innovation. This is Internet 
hijacking against all of us.

Let understand. The entire naming system is not hierarchical but 
sequential. This means that there is an infinite number of possible 
registries. That each registry has an infinite number of possible names to 
register. And every registrant may create an infinite number of 3LD and so 
forth.

This results from Louis Pouzin's zone concept first applied in the early 
1970s to the IP addresses and wisely retained for the DNS. It permits every 
TLD Registry to be totally independent and yet the system to work smoothly. 
The only problem with that approach is TLD allocation/squatting.

There are three responses to that:
- ICANN: "pay me a lot for me to mess it"
- historic inclusive roots: I will respect the first declared TLD Manager"
- Root and TLD Best Practices adopted by several roots: "seven criteria 
including the respects of the Registrants' rights". http://www.boroon.com

Real Name is a supper inclusive root, a catch all New.net. There is no more 
registries: everyone is his own TLD. NameSlinger says "name your TLD and I 
will implement it", the world@wide Trust says "let protect important TLDs 
from greed", Real Name says "every non used TLD is mine".

The alternative is simple. Someone must do the TLD registry (IANA) job.
- either ICANN does it - registration budget : $ 150.000
- either NSI does it - probable r.b : $ 100
- either ccTLD do it - r.b unknown
- or the TLD Registries do it together (TLDA) - r. b.unknown
- the market can do it - r.b. variable
- or the Internet community does it (inclusive/@large/GNU + ICANN?) - free

ICANN has extremely well worked for NSI. NSI has now a full control over 
3/4 of the DNs. NSI controls the Registrars sales force created by the 
ICANN. Inclusive roots have been maintained. USG has not transferred the 
root to the ICANN. NSI has final control on the root implementation.

ccTLD are certainly on the way of doing something, but they lack the 
coordination, the technical competence and the means to do it (it means 
supporting a roots server galaxy). They may however represent stability.

the TLDA will suffer the same limitations as the ccTLDs. But they could 
cooperation towards a common solution.

The only response I see is by the Global Internet Community. It seems quite 
simple:

- to compete seriously with NSI in establishing the product definition.
   - TLD is a free
   - RT/BP criteria apply to determine who is a TLD Manager
   - RFC 1591 - RT/BP apply : a TLD Manager is a trustee of his Registrants
   - RFC 920 applies in full
   - Domain names are life long and free. Usage is paying.

- GNU or private companies provide
   - a free alternative to the Microsoft resolver accepting the TLD database.
   - a free TLD Management system (registration and name server management).
   - TLD name server hosting. Several in here can foot the need today.

- ICANN to get rid of their ICP-3, TM involvement and UDRP and start 
educating people and business about their true rights and may be help TLD 
shared management to be set-up (so every ABC companies over the world 
manage together an .ABC TLD association). cf. RFC 920.

- GAC to make sure that an international anti-trust action is filled 
against NSI/Microsoft on the issue.

Jefsey


On 07:09 12/10/01, Jeff Williams said:
>Jefsey and all assembly members,
>
>Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> > On 03:26 12/10/01, Jeff Williams said:
> > >First let me say I cannot speak for Stuart, but I can for our members.
> > >We predicted over two years ago now that these sorts of approaches
> > >to DNS enhancement would be occurring.  This latest announcement
> > >is very similar to AOL's about a year ago.  It is one of several
> > >methods that the internet technical aspect of the industry will be
> > >addressing ICANN's short sightedness and lack of "Clue"
> > >to the TLD introduction sense abandoning RFC1591.  Many,
> > >many more will follow in fairly short order to this method, and the
> > >methods will very as well...  We view this as industry driving
> > >the use of developing technologies for the benefit of the stakeholders
> > >without undue regulation...
> >
> > Dear Jeff,
> > please take into consideration that we are not only dealing with
> > technologies: we are dealing with users.
>
>   Indeed we are.  As such if some company or other type of organization
>has an idea that it wishes to provide and market to the users that they
>believe is useful and desired by those users, than it will come to be,
>at least for a time...
>
> > What if tomorrow the different
> > phone companies were annoucing different ways to organize their numbers.
> > One saying that NY is area code 607 and the other it is 111 and another it
> > is A06... and that you can use 2 to 12 digit numbers for one, 9 digits for
> > another etc... do you really think it would help developping the telephone
> > usage and the user satisfaction.
>
>   Again, it these phone companies believe that they can "Sell" it
>to the potential or existing users, they will indeed make it available
>sooner or later.  In fact with current numbering constraints that have
>been occurring for several years now, such changes as you suggest
>here, have already taken place and will continue to do so.
>
> >
> >
> > I fully understand that NSI wants to evade the ICANN goulag. I fully accept
> > that coordinating with others is impeached by the ICANN.
>
>   The ICANN BOD and staff, most particularly Stuart Lynn, and
>Louis Touton have stated clearly that they are not interested in
>coordinating with previously existing registries for TLD's such .BIZ
>for example.  As such, they have created a instability in the stakeholders
>names without their consent, and specifically without consideration of
>a number of stakeholders stated disagreement.
>
> > I claim that ICANN
> > blocks innovation. I fully understand the "fait accompli" strategy of NSI
> > as in the iDNS case. I would have approved had they started their own root
> > or a free TLD. But Real Name on a greater scale is a mistake.
>
>   Indeed Real Names may be making a mistake.  And if they are, than
>they will sooner of later be able to plainly realize that mistake as this
>venture will not be a profitable one for them.  Failing that potential
>occurrence, I can't see that this direction is necessarily a mistake.  But
>let me say, I do not like this method.  But also we live in a free
>enterprise system and on a global basis.  Given that I can only say
>that stakeholders will vote in this instance with their pocketbooks.
>
> > All the more
> > it openly ties them with Microsoft. Or they drop .com/.net/;org and adopt
> > Passport.
> >
> > All this leads the Internet towards an area of instability, real
> > alternative roots; competitive networks and anti-trust actions.
>
>  Inclusive and Competitive Roots/registries are here, and here to
>stay.  This could of course have been avoided some years ago,
>but was not.  the ICANN "Initial" BoD had yet another chance
>to head off Inclusive and Competitive Roots/registries as well
>as the effort of RealNames as well just before the last MdR
>ICANN meeting.  Again, they decide not to do so.  As such
>I am afraid and elated at the same time, that many different
>methods or routing around the ICANN Damage will continue
>and grow.
>
> >
> >
> > This is a step too far.
> > Jefsey
>
>Dare to be bold,
>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