Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

Dear All,
we clearly have to understand where we go in here. The international naming 
space has been created in 1977 and developed until now with a fork in 1983 
with the identification of the numeric names specificity to support the 
X.121 recommendation.

In 1984 the internet naming space has been included into that plan, making 
the IANA TLD file an ARPA sub-file of the intl data file which listed all 
the public/private services registries and descriptions.

The terms and conditions where:

- on the international side: the global agreement of the digital 
sovereignty of the concerned States, enforced through the ITU treaty where 
the name space operator (Tymnet) was operating by delegation of the USA, 
through an FCC valued added carrier licence.

- on the Internet side: they were defined in Oct. 1984 by the RFC 920 which 
gives the constraints of all the Internet connections with other network, 
private or public. These constraints include the way to create new TLDs, 
necessarily by the global international naming authority, which obviously 
could only accept them if they did not conflict among the interrelated 
packet switch networks.

When ICANN was created it was only to manage the Legacy (that sub-file). 
The claim and constraints of ICANN have been clearly established in the 
ICP-3 document which roots the legitimacy of the ICANN right to manage the 
IANA file into the RFC 920 (the rules) and FTC 921 (the practical issues) 
of 1984. It is to be noted that ICP-3 calls for experimentation and 
acknowledges that it is part of the internet normal development, and sets 
precise limitations to such experimentations (what dot-root does respect). 
This is important since the 1984 introduction of the Internet namespace 
into the international namespace was initially on an free experimental basis.

Alphanumeric names usage has mostly continued only on the Internet 
intra/extranet, the numeric name space (data and telephone) being a leading 
application for a while. But this does not means that the others national 
and private shares of the namespace have been given to the US Internet 
project. Nor than other applications than the DNS may/do not use their own 
portions of the namespace. Many does, including the non-legacy TLDs (open 
roots, ITU DNICs, etc) an din different ways than the DNS.1 (all the 
possibilities offered even on the Internet by the schemes).

The Internet has well established its international legitimacy over the 
legacy namespace in respecting the 1984 consensus for 18 years - as 
perfectly did the ccTLDs (except they quite did not animated and 
represented their local communities). The commercial use of "com" and "net" 
was questionable from the authors point of view, but the real owner (at 
that time WorldCom through BT) did not made any claim against Verisign. 
When ICANN introduced 7 new TLDs in 2000 it certainly violated the 1984 
consensus concerning ".biz". But the others were legitimate as they 
respected the criteria (good support and likely more than 500 DNs).

I have had no time reading yet Milton's proposition. But in essence it is a 
GWB's like appropriation of the namespace, exactly like Iraq and it will 
receive the same response from the global community. We understand that USA 
wants to become the world government and that Americans wants to rule the 
world, selling or auctioning what belongs to everyone - may be the daily 
need of $ 1.2 billion a day from the rest of the world explains that. But, 
I am sorry, this would be here pure plundering.

The need is not to satisfy the financial needs of some (in addition in a 
money losing way). It is not to permit the intellectual ruling of the world 
by some or another one. The need is to permit this networks (data, 
telephone, home, city, etc ) to develop in harmony and stability with no 
mutual blocking and in responding the need of the users. This may only 
result from a reality based consensus, ie concertation (European meaning) 
based on experimentation.

Someone has a need, he implements a test response not violating anyone's 
right or challenging any other parallel test (we are polite grown up 
people). He demonstrates everyone that he does not hurt anything (ICP-3), 
that there is a real need through the response of a significant amount of 
test users when compared to the proposition basis, and that he has got a 
consensual approval of the overall community. Then it stays. Otherwise the 
project dies or is revived by someone else.

Let be clear about this. If ICANN is not able to warranty and help this 
process under the sole US Gov authority in a way everyone is happy with, 
this will de facto switch to the ITU as experience shown that the 
independence of interoperated network system is better protected by 190 
sovereign States proceeding by consensus than by one proceeding by opaque 
decisions favoring its own industry.

I certainly accept that ICANN can start its own TLD destruction war. That 
it tested its destruction capacity against the US small industry interests 
in the .biz case. I am quite certain it will not win it, because ICANN is 
not a world government, but mostly because it has absolutely no grip on the 
users.

So, let forget the dispute and let enter concertation. Our common interest 
is not to dispute among ourselves, but to work out the best common 
relations with the lower support (Telecoms) and upper protection (Gov) layers.

All this looks to me childish. Some had not the guts to go for it and to 
try best serve the users, so now they only want to make money and 
appropriate/steal what other debugged. What was the name of these people 
from the North who did that in the South after the Secession War?

Now why 40 a year and 30/10. EIther it is a need and it must be addressed 
appropriately after serious testing, or it is not and there is no reason to 
force dead born projects.

My 1.8 eurocent.
jfc


On 08:57 20/03/03, Doug Mehus said:

> >With this logic, anyone (or any company) would have the right to steal any
> >other intellectual property with no consequence.  Your argument holds no
> >water.
> >
> >Gene Marsh
>
><--- I'm not a legal expert by any means, but since when does a three 
>letter TLD created in an illegitimate alternate root have any legal 
>standing? And how is it considered "intellectual property"? I believe 
>Steve's point was well put on every aspect and his is in fact the camel. 
>Yours is elderly woman with incontinence.
>
>(Okay, so those were probably the weirdest metaphors I have made. ;-)
>
>Best,
>Doug
>
>--
>Doug Mehus
>dmehus@shaw.ca
>--
>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
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.461 / Virus Database: 260 - Release Date: 10/03/03

--
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