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

["L Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

Let me just say that I would prefer to discuss serious issues 
without the insults and sarcasm attached.  We have not 
misconfigured anything or pretend anything.  It is that sort of 
disinformation that causes the dissention and difficulty with dialog. 
The registry and registration system are quite robust and we have
plans for expansion.  I believe I'll close here.  Other registries can
speak for themselves.

Leah


On 19 Jun 2001, at 0:37, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> 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
> 


--
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