Re: [ga-roots] response to response to response

["Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>]

Mueller to Crispin:

OK. You've conceded that one of your premises is
self-contradictory. 

But you believe that its self-contradictory nature 
somehow proves your conclusion that ICANN "cannot"
approve multiple roots. (Do you mean "should not?")

I think you are really confused, Kent. 

My point was simple, and you failed to deal with it. 
If ICANN "approves" alternate roots, it would also
coordinate with them. And if it coordinates with them,
it would also eliminate the name collisions
that you contend would do so much harm.

Let's make it even more concrete & simple, 
for your sake. 

There is an alternate root called Name.space, supporting 500-or so generic TLDs. 
Let's say ICANN "approves" of Name.space. It would
be a simple matter for this "approval" to consist
of either entering those TLDs into its root zone, or
some kind of arms-length agreement not to assign TLDs 
that conflicted with name.space's TLDs. 

No way can you say ICANN "cannot" do this. It can,
and it might even be good policy.

If ICANN does NOT engage in this coordination, in what
sense has it "approved" those other roots? If there is 
no coordination, it is competing and conflicting with, 
not approving, those TLDs. So your whole premise, that
ICANN approval of alternate roots would produce
uncontrolled collisions, is refuted.

As for the economics of standards competition, I am 
glad to see that you have read one chapter of one 
book about it. That's a good start. 

Your grasp of network externalities is superficial,
however, and it's not wise to run around making 
sweeping policy recommendations in a sensitive area
with so little knowledge. Any more than I would run
around proposing modifications to the DNS protocol or
theBIND software. I'm not a programmer. You're not 
a policy analyst or economist.

Network externalities have varing levels of critical
mass, and the "positive feedback" varying levels of
strength, therefore some standards competitions
converge and others don't. With computer games, for
example, universal connectivity provides little added
value to the consumer of a game. One can enjoy a 
computer game regardless of whether everyone else
in the world uses the same format. The same is true
of 2nd-gen mobile telephones, where the market is
predominantly regional or national, and hence the
standards have fragmented on regional grounds. 

(BTW, do you think SONY should proclaim itself the
only true game standard, and denounce all others
as "harmful"? Which mobile standard do you want
the FTC to ban? GSM or CDMA?) 

With DNS, connectivity is the whole point of the
service. Any generic TLD that is incompatible with 
a portion of the Internet is likely to be
unattractive to consumers AND suppliers. 

This is why your second assumption is wrong. People
just won't buy domain names that don't reach most
of the Internet. Your scenario of recurring, perpetual competition among three or four vendors competing to control the same name is ludicrous.
Smart service providers won't offer highly 
conflicted names, most consumers won't buy them,
and ISPs won't support them. They will converge, or 
die. Domain names have no value otherwise. You 
can't play with them, or hang them on your wall.

In a multiple-root environment, there might be
peripheral, isolated areas of confict. But as soon as 
money is involved, there is every incentive to 
coordinate and little if any incentive to conflict. 

And that, my friend, is what I meant about "the
behavior of the alternate root" people, a comment
you completely misunderstood. I am aware that there
are a lot of squabbles among them. Most of them are trying to work out conflicts, a few are not. Guess which ones are more successful? How many
egistrations has Joe Baptista sold? Do you feel 
threatened by his operation?  

Now you are right that linguistic differences in the transition to internationalized domain names poses
an obstacle to convergence. The situation could be
analogous to the 2nd-gen mobile phone market, with
regional blocs forming around linguistic groupings.

But you seem to be utterly oblivious to the policy
issues this poses. ICANN cannot stop the government
of the Peoples Republic of China from forming an
alternate root. If the PRC or some other autonomous 
actor thinks it is in their interest to do so, they 
will do so. ICANN can proclaim that it is the "one
true root" and denounce all others as imposters and
"harmful" until it is blue in the face and it won't 
matter. 

So if you are really concerned about eliminating
collisions, one would think you would be more open
to the notion of exploring ways for multiple roots
to coordinate. 

>>> Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> 05/28/01 21:46 PM >>>
Response to Mueller's:
> Analysis of the Crispin Internet-draft. 

Unfortunately, Mueller apparently did not actually read the draft, 
so it is hard to respond.  However, to correct a couple of inaccuracies:

> The draft is based on two assumptions, both easily questioned. 
> 
> One: "I implicitly postulate that multiple roots exist and are in heavy
> use and that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> (ICANN) has somehow approved of them."
> 
> That assumption is self-contradictory.

The draft is not based on this assumption -- quite the contrary.  In
fact, that there is a contradiction in that assumption is a FUNDAMENTAL
POINT of the draft.  That is, the contradiction is explicitly recognized
in the draft, and indeed, that contradiction leads to the fundamental
conclusion: ICANN *cannot* approve multiple roots.  Indeed, as a matter
of policy, ICANN must do everything it can to discourage them, which
implies that ICANN must never give any credence to TLDs that were
deeloped through alternate roots, since such acknowledgement would 
simply encourage the proliferation of alternate roots and alternated 
TLDs. 

[...]

> Two: he assumes that multiple roots would not converge on a coordinated
> zone file.  In other words, his very definition of a "multiple root
> regime" assumes that registries, Internet service providers, and
> consumers will heedlessly create and buy conflicting names in a
> fragmented name space. 
> 
> That assumption is inconsistent with what we know about the the
> economics of standards competition, and for the most part is
> contradicted by the current behavior of alternate root operators. 

Both clauses above are simply incorrect.

1) In fact, the economics of standards competition provides an array of
examples of non-convergence, and I discuss this in the paper.  Shapiro
and Varian, in their chapter "Waging a Standards War", give several
examples: Nintendo vs Sony in the game console market have evolved to a
duopoly; the multiple competing standards for digital phones, and HDTV
are other examples, and they explicitly discuss the *fact* that
standards competition may not lead to convergence.  Given that Mueller
is supposed to have some expertise in this area, his inaccuracy on this
point is especially egregious. 

There is no way to predict with certainty what might happen in a large
scale standards war over root zones, and indeed (as I mention in the
paper) political or cultural factors may completely overshadow any
economic considerations.  

2) The current behavior of the alternate root operators, in fact, is a 
clear indication of precisely the opposite of what Mueller claims.  The 
history of the alternate root movement is notable for the strife -- 
Richard Sexton's refusal to cooperate with name.space is a recent 
example, and an even more recent example is illustrated by this 
fragment from an email on the ORSC list, in an exchange between Joe Baptista,
Einar Stefferud, and Jefsy Morfin:

> From: JoeBaptista <baptista@pccf.net>
> Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 14:19:40 -0400
> To: domain-policy@open-rsc.org
> Cc: admin@tlda.org
> Subject: Re: [ORSC.DOMAIN-POLICY] Re: [TLDA.ADMIN] Fwd: Re: [ORSC.TECH]
>   does the ORSC want to   end up in a court of law   with little ol
>   me???
> Reply-To: domain-policy@open-rsc.org
> 
> At 01:01 AM 1/1/70 -0700, you wrote:
> >Hello Jefsey --  ORSC is not removing Dr. Joe's TLDs from our ORSC 
> root! 
> >
> >My problem with Dr. Joe is that he threatened me (and ORSC) on public
> >lists, with court involvement, without any effort to contact me (or ORSC)
> >in private
> >to discuss his problems.
> 
> This is completely untrue.  And I can produce documentation to that
> effect.  You however were not contacted - richard sexton was contacted.  I
> spent several days just trying to get the orsc to remove the original pccf
> roots when diebold incorporated went wacko and disconnected the pccf arpa
> roots.  I was ignored.  I eventually just gave up and sexton only changed
> the root file when the new diebold arpas were ready for root service.  The
> same situation appled to the SETDNS program.  In fact there are public
> archives on the netsol domain-policy list in which i made it clear the pccf
> arpas should be removed and sexton said i was over reacting.
> 
> So you see steff - i have extensive documentation that i made every attempt
> to reduce the orsc's and diebold liability to us - and we were ignored.
> 
> As for your claim that I threatened you with court involvment - well thats
> nonsense.

...and so on.  One can't get a very good feeling for the stability 
offered by these root zone operators.

new.net is using TLD names that collide with prior "claims".  Examples 
of *current* name collisions can be multiplied easily.

In fact, the history of the alternate root community is notable for 
its lack of cooperation -- indeed, it has been notable for bitter 
strife for its entire existence.

[...]


-- 
Kent Crispin                              "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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


--
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