RE: [ga-roots] ICBTollFreeNews - The Alternate Root

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: owner-ga-roots@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga-roots@dnso.org]On Behalf
|> Of Patrick Corliss
|> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 11:41 PM
|> To: Milton Mueller
|> Cc: [ga-roots]
|> Subject: [ga-roots] ICBTollFreeNews - The Alternate Root
|>
|>
|> From: Judith Oppenheimer <editor@icbtollfree.com>
|> Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 20:42:55 -0700
|> Subject: 5/16/01 http://ICBTollFreeNews.Com HEADS UP HEADLINES
|>
|> ICANN's view that it administers the 'one true root' and can ignore
|> all other name spaces is old and increasingly discredited. That whole
|> framework rather obviously breaks down as soon as technical innovations
|> are introduced. It is particularly obvious in two cases: New.net, and
|> internationalized domain names. by Professor Milton Mueller.

Where is the technical innovation in the New.net implementation?  It and
the MLD concept do not have anything in common that is obvious.

|> THE ALTERNATE ROOT
|>
|> by Milton Mueller, Professor, Syracuse University School of Information
|> Studies, and elected Names Council representative for The Noncommercial
|> Domain Name Holders Constituency http://www.ncdnhc.org/
|> responding to the ICANN Names Council's debate regarding "what to do"
about
|> alternative roots.
|>
|> It is my belief that we need to explore and define alt root
|> issues first,and come to conclusions, later. That is why we need a
working
|> group and a careful and extended consideration of the issues.

I would say a threat analysis would be appropriate terminolgy.  But that
depends on the perspective.  If we look at it from a corporation
perspective then an analysis of the threat and competition implied by other
name spaces is important.  From the perspective of end users, there are
different issues involved and any such study of the name space issue needs
to first define what perspective is being applied.

With regard to ICANN and the recommendations regarding policy from the GA,
what is appropriate for members to focus on?  Should the GA focus on
presenting policies to the ICANN Board that will benefit the corporation or
should the GA focus on issues that will benefit the end users and may be to
the detriment of the ICANN corporation?

|> The most significant issue is simply to define what we mean by an
|> "alternate" or "competing" root. The answer is not obvious,
|> even to those with some understanding of DNS.

Agreed, there have been calls for defining what the parties are in these
issues.

|> ICANN's view that it administers the "one true root" and can ignore all
|> other name spaces is old and increasingly discredited. That
|> whole framework rather obviously breaks down as soon as technical
innovations are
|> introduced. It is particularly obvious in two cases: New.net, and
|> internationalized domain names.

Disagree that New.net introduces any technical innovations.  Also the
statement:"ICANN's view that it administers the "one true root" and can
ignore all other name spaces is old and increasingly discredited." is just
that, a personal statement and is not backed up with any supporting
documentation.  ICANN is not ignoring all other name spaces as evidenced by
the discussion here for example.  The GA members are a part of ICANN and
the processes it employs, as such, the discussions here are showing ICANN
is not "ignoring the other name spaces".  Also, just what is ICANN supposed
to do with such name spaces?  They are not under its control, they are all
individually controlled.

|> New.net happened because ICANN's approach to adding TLDs is too
|> SLOW and too RESTRICTIVE. ICANN's artificial scarcity created a market,
and
|> businesses are responding to it. The free market is giving us a valuable
signal:
|> current policies are way out of line with what consumers in the
|> marketplace want. ICANN ignores this at its peril.

Whilst I would agree the current addition of TLD's to the legacy root has
been slow, I'm not so sure about the "restrictive" comment.  I'm also a
little unsure if the market in other name spaces was created due to any
slowness in introducing new TLD's.  I tend to think the market was created
by New.net and others with the idea marketed after the fact.  In other
words, someone had the bright idea they could make some money by
introducing a new name space and then selling the idea to the end users,
not the end users demanding the service and some one meeting that demand.
Agreed however, that the idea would not have been marketable unless there
was a percieved shortfall in the legacy name space.  Nor do I think ICANN
has ignored such name spaces.  The introduction of .biz into the legacy
name space is one way ICANN has shown it is not ignoring the other name
spaces.  Some may consider this an invalid recognition but personally I
believe it is a valid ploy on the part of ICANN.  If ICANN introduces new
TLD's that correspond to all the TLD's in use by other name spaces they
would drive the competition out of the market.  For a corporation this
would be an attractive means of dealing with the issue.

|> Oft quoted analogies to the telephone system are also incorrect. Most
|> national telephone systems in the world started with their own,
|> uncoordinated number spaces. The ITU did not coordinate them
|> until very late in the game. The coordination took place by adding a
level of hierarchy
|> (country codes) to each system. I would suggest that this
|> process was very much like processes that might be used to coordinate
alternate
|> root systems.

I would say that the legacy root name space achieved coordination with the
the hierarchy established with the TLD's and that the introduction of other
name spaces is actually attempting to bring about uncoordinated name
spaces.  In other words, there existed a stable and albeit slow to
introduce new TLD name space and that other name spaces have been
introduced that are profiting from an association with the original name
space and attempting to gain control of the initial name space.

|> You also can't call ISPs utilizing New.net's altered DNS capabilities a
|> "conspiracy" unless you are consistent and also call ISPs'
|> willingness to point to the ICANN root a "conspiracy."

Haven't heard this concept of a conspiracy.  However, in the case of
New.net, a large proportion of their name space is only visible to end
users due to the use of the legacy name space.  Not all of the visibility
relies on deals with ISP's.  As they are using the legacy name space to
capture end users for their name space, the use of the term anarchy to
describe this marketing ploy is appropriate.  I suspect there may also be
some elements of anarchy in the deals developed with ISP's.  So, in one
sense, there may be a "conspiracy", with New.net and some ISP's conspiring
to move end users to the new space and away from the legacy root name
space.  It would be interesting to establish how much information is being
passed onto the end users of the ISP's who have developed deals with
New.net.  Do the end users fully understand the implications and issues
inherent with such deals?

|> In both cases we are dealing with voluntary business relationships and
|> technical configurations among Internet service providers.
|>
|> ICANN has no international legal authority to order anyone to
|> point to its  root, and no national government has given it any
exclusive
|> right to call itself the DNS root. ISPs point to the ICANN root because
everyone else
|> does. But if enough ISPs chose to set up an alternate DNS root tomorrow,
|> they could do so and, I argue, SHOULD be able to do so.

They can certainly do so.  And a number of networks do exist that do not
link into the legacy root zone.  However, I do believe that if a network or
individual node is connecting to the legacy root then they should abide by
the constrictions imposed by the operators of that legacy root.  The
problem as I see it is that we have name spaces that wish to profit by an
association with the legacy root and have access to the legacy root users
without abiding by the rules of the legacy name space.

|> The real issue we ought to be considering is this:
|>
|> 1. How can ICANN's process be made more responsive to real
|> market forces?
|> Responsiveness does not mean "industry self-regulation," where a few
|> insiders with a dominant position in the market cartelize the
|> name space and award each other a limited number of TLDs. I mean true
|> responsiveness to the demands of all consumers and suppliers operating
in the market.

Personally I believe that the market should not be involved at the TLD
level and that better use and marketing of the higher levels of domain
names would be more appropriate.  The existing TLD's are under utilised and
not marketed or used efficiently.  However, that aside, it would appear the
best resolution would be to streamline the ICANN procedures and make the
introduction of new TLD's move at a more responsive pace.  Hopefully, after
this initial introduction of new TLD's some hard lessons will be learned
and the processes improved for the next round.

|> 2. Alternate and competing roots exist. How can policies be defined to
|> minimize problems and to make them compatible?

The real issues are in attempts to make them compatible.  I do not see that
they should be.  I would rather see a total separation.  Also, there are
efforts to develop policies to get ICANN accept the authority of the other
name spaces, why have not alternative policies been considered?  Perhaps
policies should be developed and adopted to enable ICANN to limit the
impact of such other name spaces and such policies would not be couched in
terms of making them compatible or in cooperation.

|> 3. Above all, let's stop the posturing: ICANN and the US Dept
|> of Commerce root are not divinely ordained, competition is a fact of the
|> marketplace, so let's stop viewing competitors as illegitimate or as
something
|> that will go away.

Nor are the other name spaces operated under highly acclaimed models of
virtue and standard.  They appear to be cloaked in a shroud of mystery in
some cases.

One point about competition.  In most markets corporations try to squash
competition and work very hard at making competition ineffective.  Wouldn't
it make sense for ICANN to adopt policies that would limit the impact other
name spaces have on the market.  Shouldn't ICANN adopt a policy of
introducing TLD's that exist in other name spaces with the express
intention of limiting the competition from such name spaces?  It makes more
business sense to me than attempting to cooperate with such name spaces.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

--
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