Re: [ga] New TLD White Paper released

["L. Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

On 20 Mar 2003 at 10:26, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> >
> > Karl, try to answer this for me.  Is it in the best interests of the
> > economy to undermine entrepreneurial efforts by simply taking the unique
> > product of small businesses and organizations by fiat?
> 
> What is it that is proposed to be "taken" here?  If the DoC root does not
> have an entry for .foo, then putting .foo in the DoC root does not "take"
> anything from anyone.  Nobody is compelled to use the DoC root if they do
> not want to use it, and nobody is prevented from operating another root
> system. If you want to run your own root, then run your own root.  The day
> after a collider is put into the ICANN root, you can still run your own
> root, and users can decide which one they want to use.  What gives you the
> right to force others to use yours?  Nobody is forcing anybody to use
> ICANN's.

No one is forced to use any root, but no root should deliberately include 
a duplicate TLD with different nameservers either.  You know full well 
what happens when they do.

> 
> > Please tell me
> > what incentive there might be for small businesses to start up if
> > somewhere down the road the government will elect to just destroy them at
> > will, with no recourse.
> 
> What rule is there that says the government cannot open a refreshment stand
> inside a national park, even if there are food vendors situated nearby
> outside the park?  More accurately, if I sell hot dogs outside of the
> entrance to Yellowstone, then what principle gives me first dibs on any hot
> dog concession that the government might decide to run inside Yellowstone?
> Why would the government owe me that?
> 
> Now, experience in selling hot dogs might be a good consideration in
> deciding who gets to sell hot dogs in the park, but I can't see how having
> operated a private business with private resources somehow confers a right
> to be enshrined in a government-controlled environment.
> 
> 

Hot dogs are generic.  Hebrew national hot dogs are specific.  A TLD is a 
unique character string that cannot safely be duplicated in the DNS and is 
the unique product of a registry.  If the USG decided to open a Hebrew 
National Hot Dog factory it would be illegal.  If it opened a non-
sanctioned MacDonald's restaurant it would be illegal.  If it opened 
California Sellars winery it would be illegal.  If it copied another 
specific product for sale that is the sole product of another company, 
there would be grounds to stop it.  With a TLD, DoC just does it and gets 
away with it.  I almost wish they would to after .GOD because I know that 
Joe B. would defend it under Canadian copyright law.

Just because the USG has the power to do it, doesn't mean it is right to 
do it.  It's just one more thing to fuel the resentment of the rest of the 
world.  Gutting small businesses should not be what the DoC does in the 
best interests of the community.

Leah


--
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