Re: A point of agreement (Re: [ga-roots] response to response to response)

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Harald and all,

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> At 00:40 29.05.2001 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
> >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.
>
> Thanks for making it clear that you think a single root will eventually occur.

  I don't think that this is what Milton was trying to say here Harald.  I do
agree with what he DID say specifically.  The indirect reference to conflicting
TLD's was one that brought to my mind that two .BIZ's or .INFO's
cannot be allowed.  In that the ICANN BoD created this as a possibility
in MDR, it would seem that the already existing registries for those
TLD's will have to be negotiates with for a contractual arrangement or
there will be collisions...

>
>
> It is clear that we have agreement even among those who do not want to
> admit it that there needs to be a way to get to the point where one name
> has only one resolution in any DNS service.

  This is of course fundamentally untrue and already proven to be untrue.

>
>
> ICANN has proposed one way: strict regulation of entries into a single
> root, no conflicts allowed.

  Than why did they create two conflicting TLD's? (eg. .BIZ and .INFO)

>
> Name.space, ORSC and others have proposed another way: first come first
> served, talk until tired whenever conflicts occur.

  Interesting characterization.  It 's more like create another Registry, include
the Legacy USG root zone, and proceed as normal.  If collisions occur
who was first, should be upheld.  If not than the stakeholders will make
their desires known.

>
> New.net has proposed a third way: sell what you want, and hope to get so
> many customers that the others won't dare challenge you.

  Another interesting characterization.  Incorrect one IMHO.  More
accurate would be create a different method, tell the stakeholders
about it, and they will beat a path to your door!  >;)  The stakeholders
will put their money where they want to not where ICANN tells them to!

>
>
> I personally think that ICANN's way is fairer and less painful than the
> other current proposals; I may be in a minority on that.

  I looks like at least 16m registrants would disagree with you...

>
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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