Re: [ga] Good News

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

Pascao and all assembly members,

  You make some interesting observations in your comments below
as well as some misconstruence's in response to mine.  (See more
below your comments/observations).

Pascal Bernhard - cube wrote:

> Jeff and all assembly members,
>
> On 29 Nov 2001, at 22:26, Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> >   Thank you for your comments.  The are quite interesting and
> > I hope thought provoking to everyone.  I have a few
> > comments/clarifications
> > to your comments/observations.  (See below yours)
>
> Sure. I hope the provocation has been heard. As you may be aware,
> my official (and true) position may be read in the White Paper of
> BORooN.

  BORooN?  I am not familiar with that?  Any URL references?

>
>
> Still there are precisions to be made about the words used, thank
> you for that, Jeff. See my statements below.
>
> > > >   ORSC, New.Net, INEGroup(Many web sites for instance) and a few
> > > > others kinda beat you to the punch by about 1 1/2 years.  But we
> > > > hope we will be glad you are going to be on board!  >;)
> > >
> > > Jeff, I'm not sure what board you mean.
> >
> >   No "Board" of any particular type of kind.  Rather it is a manner of
> > expression or speech.
>
> Still a "board" determines a side or a community.

  Not necessarily.  But it may.  In my comment above it does not.

> That is, there
> should be a principle, which tight members together on the board.

  Not all "Boards" have a guiding set of principals or a single principal
by which they as "Board Members" in this use of the term, would
determine their decisions.  My use of the term is that which I responded
to Eric and Jefsey as to a method, rather than a set of principals or
a single principal.  Ergo again my original response.

>
> The question was in fact what principle defines the board you mean,
> even if it is just an idiomatic expression.

  None in specific as I already stated.  Rather a method.

>
>
> > > As far as my experience with
> > > alternative roots reaches, all are trying to push their own system on
> > > the market.
> >
> >   This may be true of "Alternative Roots" in some instances.  However I
> > was not referring to "Alternative Roots".  I was referring to Inclusive
> > and/or Competitive Root structures and/or registries.  Big difference in
> > most instances.  ORSC is NOT and "Alternative" root, by the way..
>
> For ICANN and most of the people out of here, all roots which are not
> managed by ICANN are alternative roots.

  Not so any longer.

> Please don't expect people
> out of the classical industry (or old economy) to understand what is a
> root. Among the alternative roots, there are inclusive and exclusive
> roots. No.  There are inclusive and competitive Root structures.



> The definition of inclusive and exclusive seems to differ from
> community to community. I use inclusive roots as an expression for
> a root which includes the *official* roots.

  There are no "Official" Roots any longer.  There are simply Inclusive
and competitive root structures.

>
>
> The result of having many inclusive roots, is that they show on a
> common namespace (ICANN) and on own namespaces which may
> be different.

  Yes this would be a working definition of a Inclusive root structure
except ICANN doesn't own the Legacy/USG Root's.  The USG
DOC/NTIA does.  Hence perhaps, your confusion...

>
>
> BTW: under this definition, ORSC is not an inclusive root, because
> .biz and .info are not shown in the namespace of ICANN.

  ICANN has no namespace.  So yes, this is true.  However the
TLD's .biz and .info to which you refer are part ot the Legacy/USG
root structure.  It is just that they have different and distinct registries.

>
>
> I'm not sure to understand the expression competitive root structures.

  I noticed that.  Competitive Roots structures, not just "Roots" would
be those that are inclusive perhaps, and competitively distinct from
the Legacy/USG root structure but carry the same zone file with
additions.  Or competitive Root structures  not just "Roots" would be
a set of Root servers that do not carry the legacy/USG TLD's but
do carry competitive TLD's as well as registries.

>
>
> Jefsey brought once the concept of coopetitive structures. I
> understand this as competitive root networks which share the same
> root file. That is the model BORooN supports.

  This is one type of competitive Root structure, yes.  But not the only type.

>
>
> > > As divided systems, they are too weak to have a real weight in the
> > > balance with ICANN, even if ORSC has 40 Mio. hits. What's a hit,
> > > anyway?
> >
> >   What is a hit you ask?  Hummmm?  Well it is in essence an event when a
> > stakeholder/user visits a particular Web site.
>
> Jeff, I know what a hit is.

  Than why did you ask?  >;)

> But what is the _real_ comunication
> significance of a hit? If one Web site hat 20 gifs, one pageview
> makes 21 hits. By 2 millions hits, it just states about fewer than
> 100000 pageviews, which is another relation.

  Good point's here.

>
>
> > > > > You see some interests want a non-profit legitimacy and I lied and
> > > > > said this reference to the GA and AL would give it to them.  Nope
> > > > > nothing official but a guaranteed million hits a day by May 2002.
> > > > > It is so sweet - it will just say "do you want to be a part of
> > > > > running the worlds' Internet click here" Of course it will include
> > > > > things like You could be the next General Assembly Chair or you
> > > > > could sit on the BoD of ICANN"
>
> >   Is Mindspring (The 4th largest ISP) a real "Carrier"?  If it is in
> > your opinion than in case you didn't know, they resolve New.nets TLD's
> > and Domain Names registered in those name spaces.
>
> That states, that new.net is running an adequate market strategy. Do
> you look at new.net as an inclusive/competitive root structure?

  Yes.

> Do
> you think the reaction of ICANN against new.net is adequate?

  No.  It in fact is anti competitive in it's nature.  However thankfully
Done Evans made the DOC/NTIA's position somewhat clear.
That being essentially that the USG/DOC/NTIA will not do
anything to harm or thwart competitive or inclusive Root structures
or registries.  But also will not assist them either.  And that is fine.

>
>
> Regards,
> Pascal
> ================================
> Pascal Bernhard
> cube
> Geschäfte werden von Menschen gemacht...
> pbernhard@cube.de
> http://cube.de/
> http://boroon.de/
> FON: +49-6352-753725
> FAX: +49-6352-753726
> Mail: Im See 3 - 67295 Bolanden

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes 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:  972-244-3801 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