[ga-roots] Re: [ga] Alternate Root Memo sent to Names Council

["List Admin" <patrick@corliss.net>]

From: Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 6:35 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Alternate Root Memo sent to Names Council

Dear Jeff,
this document of yours is not without interest. It mainly shows
how weak is your position and how tough it will be for you to
play your part in the iCANN manipulation of yours you have
provoqued?

1) you first play only on the word authoritative in a totally wrong
    way as the authoritative is the one who tells the IP address.

    But let assume this new meaning, it is quite dangerous as I
    will respond "the authoritative root for *my* machine is he
    one *I* chose".

    Otherwise I will sue you and the iCANN for hacking. i.e.
    imposing data in my machine that I do not want. In a
    very similar way to a cookie.

    BTW this word is poor for you: if the root is authoritative
    it is on other roots. These other roots are therefore known
    accepted and cared about. They belong to the DNS system

2) then you say you don't take away the ".biz" business of
    ARNI. This might be true should you be able to produce
    two evidences;

    -  that you give your head to cut that the DNS will never
       be modified in the centuries to come.
    -  that you give your head to cut that the real network as
       it is built by thousands of ISPs will *never* permit that,
       all its components working well, a mail sent to a
       host under your bis.biz will *never* reach a host under
       the same domain name under .biz. (and you put that
       as a notice on your site).

    I asked Vint why he decided not to warn the DoC about
    that risk. He chose not to reply. I think this is your best
    protection when collision problem will arise. Tell that Vint
    said there will never be. And quote your today letter as a
    testimony you believed in his word today.

3) You come through the lengthy iCANN process to chose
    you. You forget that this process was to be a "proof of
    concept" and that your proposition - cf. other iCANN docs,
    multiple authorized comments and lack of claim in your
    own documents - has no new concept, except one.

    This is that you chose to apply for an existing TLD
    in real operation (actually one of the most active). You
    though that iCANN could be interested in using you against
    the alternative roots. And the iCANN took it. Bravo!

    But how long. You are going to invest on disputed grounds.
    You are just a market test for the iCANN and a tool. You
    probably foresaw that in your business plan, hiring more
    lawyers than techies. You also want to fight the DNSO/IPC
    people (good luck). This will make the head lines. Good
    advertizing you think. Fighting on several fronts together,
    so you may hide your loss on one behind a victory on
    another. May be a good plan, but please do not speak
    about stability :-)

4) Another weakness of your document is that you base
    most of your argumentation on the iCANN. Authoritative
    root (I love that new word to define the root authoritative
    on my PC !). Authoritative in choosing new TLDs: poor
    iCANN which will not be able to pick .usa if they wish?

    -  dangerous as you do not know what will be the iCANN
       one year from now.
    -  you will provide no defense to iCANN against non
       iCANN yet legacy TLDs (I suggest you read RFCs
       carefully). Louis Touton will be sorry for that....
    -  how will you relate with Chinese people?

5) There is nowever a very interesting development for
    which we should all thank you. This is the very good
    compendium on the fact that a TLD cannot be protected.
    Very good indeed.

    If I read you correctly: .web could not pretend that
    another .web had no right to use .web. Because the
    Judge said: "who gave you the right you claim?"

    All you document says: "I have that right because the
    iCANN gave it to me (or the DoC)!" Great. But who
    gave the right to them first?

    Since no right can be established on a TLD.... Since
    you demonstrate it.


6) you have a set of minor points of lesser interest:
    you make a salad mix of them. Some might be
    of interest to discuss for fun. Endless disputes..

Frankly two three years from now, I am afraid this
piece of hard work will be used as an example of the
2001 iCANN philosophy oddities.

Why not just to make a deal with Leah ("the first biz
in .biz"). You would then be quoted as the cute one
who tricked the iCANN. You lend he trap, they took
the bait, and you got the day. You would be the first
alternative/legacy TLD. (BTW this may be what you
call authoritative.... ! :-) )

Cheers.

Jefsey

----- Original Message -----
From: Neuman, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman@NeuLevel.com>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 08:02:59 -0500
Subject: [ga] Alternate Root Memo sent to Names Council

> All,
>
> Enclosed is a memorandum that we sent to the Names Council on the issue of
> Alternate Roots, specifically with regards to the Atlantic Root.
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>
>  <<Alternate Roots[1].doc>>
>
> > Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> > Director, Policy and Intellectual Property
> > NeuLevel, Inc.
> > p: (202) 533-2733
> > f: (202) 533-2970
> > e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@NeuLevel.com


--
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