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

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

On 2001-06-18 16:46:39 -0400, L Gallegos wrote:

>The statements made that it won't have much impact because of the 
>number (present number) of registrations is fallacious in any 
>case.  You don't know how much those numbers will increase, for 
>one thing, and for another, it won't take many instances of email 
>and hostname collisions to produce problems.

It's quite comfortable to call arguments which are based on hard 
figures "fallacious" - but that's not precisely what I'd expect from 
someone who claims that she's not just toying around with a BIND 
installation which pretends to serve a TLD.

So let's look.  What precisely are your criteria for a TLD which 
should belong to the zoo of "valid" TLDs, as opposed to 
misconfigured intranets?  What precisely is your criterion for a TLD 
which can be taken seriously?  Just that this TLD made it into some 
alt.root's root zone?

And since you emphasize "present" and say I don't know how the 
numbers will grow (or, for that matter, shrink): Do you seriously 
believe that the number of registrations in your version of .biz 
will grow siginificantly in the future?  A growth rate of about 1% 
per week is rather weak.  And, in fact, the arguments you are making 
on your web pages about the future fate of .biz domains don't look 
like they'd convince any actual biz of registering in that TLD. 
Heck - all you get there is marginal visibility and a good chance of 
a collision once the ICANN .biz is out.  Nothing I'd invest just a ¢ 
into.

Also, guess who'll be blamed for the collisions (not that we'll see 
a critical mass of these).

>ICANN will spin it to appear as though it is the fault of those 
>pre-existing TLDs. However, facts are really simple things.  ICANN 
>is the duplicator, period.

You don't convince anyone by stamping on the ground and typing 
"period" - in particular when you consider figures on your customer 
base a "fallacious" argument, but can't give any reasoning why your 
.biz should be considered.

>The Internet is global.  The DNS is global.  No one entity can 
>control it and cooperation is a necessity.

Precisely.  But why should anyone cooperate with YOU?  Or the other 
alternative TLDs?  Why should anyone (including you) cooperate with 
me when I happen to decide that I'd like to get some thousand TLDs 
in the alt.root network.

I'm sorry I have to put it that hard, but that's how what it looks 
like.

>>Also, a "rush" of alt.roots (and in TLDs being offered by these 
>>alt.roots) which doesn't coincide with a corresponding rush of 
>>SLD registrations under these TLDs very much looks like a rush 
>>of childish fools trying to play Internic - which is, frankly, 
>>something ICANN should indeed ignore, and on which even the 
>>development of a III 3 b policy would be far too much effort and 
>>honor.

>Another simple fact.  It's here.  It will continue and will grow 
>for a time.

To quote your words, this argument is fallacious.  You don't have 
the faintest idea what kind of growth (or loss) will happen in the 
future.  Also, I doubt that squatting on every even remotely 
interesting TLD is a good idea - smells like classical 
cybersquatting from a certain point on.

>I speak only for myself here.  However, I certainly would not 
>expect ICANN to adopt every "create on the fly" TLD.  I don't even 
>recall saying that ICANN should have to adopt all TLDs.  I have 
>consistently said that ICANN should, under no circumstances 
>duplicate an existing operational TLD.

And I've been trying to figure out your definition of "operational". 
"Can be resolved by the five or ten name servers which have been 
especially configured" hardly qualifies - I can set up a dozen of 
these in no time.  "Has a significant number of registrants" is 
"fallacious", you say.  Now, what?



On 2001-06-18 22:58:01 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

>you are certainly right in term of reasonable and sensible 
>appreciation of the situation. As was the Spanish establishment 
>considering that Christorforo Colombani from Genoa. No one 
>sensible would have considered any Spanish King representative 
>action without several Tercios, the Cortez, the Grands etc... So 
>to have three barks going to nowhere on an open root, sorry, 
>rout... to claim territories !!! ....

Nah, please. You can do better than that, Jefsey.  Comparing the 
alternative roots to Christopher Columbus is _really_ exaggerated. 
Also, only very few of them really qualify as "pioneers" - and 
indeed I believe that it's wrong of ICANN to squash these few.

But still, I also don't like the idea that ICANN should have to 
recognize every idiot with a name server - in part, and that's the 
argument Stuart, Kent, and Noss are making, because the big ones in 
the business would see themselves coerced into squashing these 
idiots themselves - which would, in turn, be detrimental to the 
Internet's stability.


No, I don't like the process Stuart Lynn is using in order to come 
to some sort of policy on the alternative roots.  I also think that 
quite a few of his arguments are bad or weak.  But I have to agree 
with him on at least some of the conclusions he draws.



>The problem is that the New.net's and NameSlinger's TLDs are 
>legally valid.

Legally valid according to what law?  According to what court's 
judgement?  Please back up your claims, JFC.

>First come, first serve.... They will have to be purchased back 
> from them. They are no cybersquatters: just an economic model with 
>as much merit as bug.biz.

If the alternative roots have reasonable economic models behind 
them, why has Leah's .biz just 3778 domains?  And why doesn't it 
grow extremely rapidly, given the low registration fee?  Somehow, 
your argument doesn't look like it's backed up by reality.

>NameSlinger is carefull about not colliding. Not like Vint. All 
>these TLDs have more DNs than the smallest ccTLDs (several have 
>none).

So why does Pacific Root think they have authority over .eu?

>- bug.biz collision by VintCerf

Oh, yes, it was the great Internet devil Vint Cerf (who's BTW the 
culprit for the failure of IPv8, and for that lousy toy ipv4 
protocol we've been using over the last 20 years) in peson who 
"created" the collision.  Come on, Jefsey, that's nonsense.

>Just tell me how you can address that situation now. I see only 
>one solution: to reach a consensus among root operators (iCANN, 
>WWAccTLD and inclusive roots if they want) to define TLD's best 
>practices - according to RFCs, not from Louis Touton's contracts - 
>and to agree that any operator accepting and trying to abide by 
>these rules is legitimate. And to make that agreement attractive 
>enough for the new roots to accept them. Should have we discussed 
>it three months agor as I proposed we would not be in that 
>situation.

I agree that the best and nicest way to stop the alternative root 
epidemic is to take over the market for, say, "visibility services" 
by just offering superior visibility at reasonable conditions. 
However, failing that, I'd expect that most alternative TLDs 
wouldn't have a real chance against colliding TLDs in the canonical 
root.

But hey, we'll see how Leah's home-brewn Titanic smashes against the 
iceberg quite soon.  Let's stay tuned.


On 2001-06-18 23:35:57 +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:

>As for NameSlinger: they claim too much. They look like 
>Name.Space.

Or worse - Jim Fleming, who happened to make it past my filters 
today by replying to a message from me, was indeed right - it seems 
that .eu is pointing to NameSlinger's servers on - at least - 
Pacific Root.  Now, this will make for a really nice collision, and 
makes it a bit hard to take NameSlinger serious.

>One company cannot claim the whole 'world', not even if customers 
>ask for it. 

Where's the criterion to differentiate serious and bogus TLDs and 
roots?


-- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
--
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