Re: [ga-roots] Re: ICANN Policy -- revised version

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 03:42 PM 6/14/01 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 06:02:39PM -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
> > Stuart:
> >
> > I would request that you modify your statement to indicate that there
> > currently is NO stated consensus policy on the adoption of TLD
> > assignments by ICANN that are in use in alternate or competing roots.
>
>On the contrary, I think the statement should be strengthened, for
>exactly the reason that the Tucows representative gave:  to give any
>deference whatsoever to alternate root providers would simply encourage
>avoidance of the ICANN process.  Right now the big players don't do
>alternate roots for two reasons:  1) they realize the technical
>instabilities it would create; and 2) even more important, they realize
>the total chaos that would prevail if ICANN gave any credence
>whatsoever to alternate roots.

Total chaos is *EXACTLY* what ICANN is proposing by breaking the DNS with a 
duplicate TLD. Period.

> > I can prove easily that there is no policy: ICANN has explicitly avoided
> > a conflict in the case of .WEB, and it has created a conflict in the case
> > of .BIZ.
>
>You have a pretty weak notion of "proof".  If anything, what we have is
>clear proof that ICANN has simply been following a policy of ignoring
>any precedent set by alternate roots.

They have treatment centers for people in denial. Get help.

> > The White Paper simply does not address the issue.
>
>Yes, it did.

Where exactly? An accurate reference would be useful.

>Moreover, whether you
>like it or not, the IAB *is* the the most authoritative technically
>competent opinion available, and ICANN simply cannot ignore that fact,
>no matter how much you would like it to.

And it says use one root zone at a time. It says nothing about which root 
to use.

> > In your unilateral policy statement known as the "discussion draft,"
> > you made it clear that you do not like alternate roots. I would ask
> > you to look beyond that, as it is irrelevant to the question I am raising.
> > We must not confuse the question of whether there is a prior
> > policy with the question of WHAT the policy should be. We may agree
> > or disagree on the latter. But the only conclusion an honest person
> > cam come to about the former is that it is a policy question that has
> > not been carefully defined and explored.
>
>Sorry, that is utter nonsense, and please don't cloak yourself in the
>"honest person" flag -- an honest person would notice that there are
>many more possible and likely interpretations of past events than the
>facile one that you propose.
>
>It is undeniable fact that there is a long and continuous history of
>rejection of alternate roots, a history that preceeded ICANN by years.

Postel sanctioned use of alt.roots for testing Draft Postel applications. 
He also went on to split the root zone authority of the real root servers 
in order to include the gTLD-MOU TLDs. He was stopped just in time.

Nobody's buying your spin anymore, Mr gTLD-MOU POC chair.



Best Regards,

Simon

--
"You can't vote on facts"
                    - Brian Carpenter

--
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