confusion .. ?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 14:25:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Frederick Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Reply: The "idea" of the absolute "power" of ICANN is a myth.
Fred - the internet if simple enough - if you want us to use it - explain
it. It's not a lunch thing. Don't try to convence me - convence
them. And if they understand so will I. So far all I've seen is
marketing and I still have no understanding of it. This is not an
invitation for you to explain it to me. Explain it to the group - they
are the ones who count.
regards
Joe Baptista
http://www.dot.god/
dot.GOD Hostmaster
+1 (805) 753-8697
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Frederick Harris wrote:
> Hello Joseph,
> I offered to visit with you and tell you how the eTLDs
> work. If I rightly understood your reply, you did not wish to meet with me. The
> offer is still open. I'm not going to disclose to this list how the eTLDs work.
> Why don't you phone me?
> Tel: 905-729-4994
> Cheers, R.
>
> "!Dr. Joe Baptista" wrote:
>
> > Ross at tucows recntly told me that clarity is a part of zen. Maybe we
> > should all do some zen.
> >
> > Rick - everyone here who is without a technical clue has no idea what your
> > going on about - simply put those of us with a clue have no idea what your
> > going on about.
> >
> > Could you simply provide the name of an eTLD (or domains) and tell us the
> > proceedure for finding it. Becaue have no idea what your talking
> > about and the only way we can evaluate this is with technical
> > documentation or examples.
> >
> > regards
> > Joe Baptista
> >
> > http://www.dot.god/
> > dot.GOD Hostmaster
> > +1 (805) 753-8697
> > On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Rick Harris wrote:
> >
> > > Reply to Michael Sondow:
> > > The "Power" of ICANN is a Myth
> > >
> > > Michael,
> > > Others long ago figured out how to bypass
> > > ICANN by devising "equivalent tlds" (eTLDS). Etlds
> > > resolve inside the root zone architecture of the public
> > > internet. In other words, unlike ORSC - which
> > > (understandably and rightly) seeks to build the equivalent of a second
> > > railway track to offset the monopsony power of ICANN-
> > > the actual source of ICANN's power which is
> > > monopolization of the "legitimized" root of the DNS, has disappeared with
> > > the invention of eTLDs.
> > >
> > > Apparently the digerati on the DNS Policy List prefer to ignore
> > > eTLDs - which is fine. People if they prefer can waste their time and
> > > political capital complaining about ICANN procedural
> > > matters when ICANN effectively has no further power over
> > > the DNS. For that reason - power - ICANN insists on the single-root
> > > architecture. However, eTLDs are impervious to ICANN *because* (unlike
> > > ORSC) they take the path of least resistance which - in terms of global
> > > connectivity - happens to reside for the present *inside* the root.
> > >
> > > Any physics major, organizational specialist or student of systems theory
> > > will tell you the same thing. Innovation (good and bad) always takes the
> > > path of least resistance.
> > >
> > > That being said, the plain fact of the matter is that there is nothing
> > > complicated about eTLDs - and they do not require $50,000 to create one. It
> > > baffles me that your correspondents on the list do not seem to have grasped
> > > that very simple fact. There seems to be a disconnect between the imagined
> > > power of ICANN and the reality of the fact that eTLDs effectively make ICANN
> > > a political non sequitur. This doesn't defeat the legitimate *technical*
> > > argument that having two parallel DNSs might tend to introduce
> > > turbulence in the system. But turbulence will happen if - and only if - the
> > > two "competitive" systems seek to create universal connectivity from a
> > > "single source" or root.
> > >
> > > The fallcy of the argument that a duality inside the root is a good idea
> > > contradicts common sense because any reasonable person understands that more
> > > than one *singularity* inside the root will in fact create instability in
> > > terms of global connectivity. Therefore, ORSC ought create another root zone
> > > if it can - and I expect that with proliferation on the web there will in
> > > due course be two or more railway tracks. Which is fine so long as they
> > > remain parallel to one another absent a political solution to the problem
> > > of accessing the "authoritative" root.
> > >
> > > Until that solution happens,there is only one doable root. And even then,
> > > ICANN still has no real *power* or "authority" in the sense of gatekeeping
> > > the authoritative root *because* the idea of eTLDs has been introduced - and
> > > the idea of eTLDs can not be uninvented. ICANN may henceforth authorize,
> > > legitimatize, accredit and/or sanction as many or as few new TLDs as it
> > > prefers. The power of ICANN is a delusion precisely because the idea of and
> > > the reality of eTLDs will not go away.
> > > Rick Harris
> > >
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > Michael Sondow wrote:
> > >
> > > James Love wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ICANN has posted new information (15 August 2000)
> > > regarding new TLD
> > > > applicaitons.
> > > >
> > > > Among the many interesting Criteria are what appears
> > > to be a highly
> > > > anticompetitive requirement.
> > > >
> > > > 1. The need to maintain the Internet's stability.
> > > >
> > > > ICANN's first priority is to preserve the stability
> > > > of the Internet, including the domain-name system
> > > (DNS).
> > > > Proposals should demonstrate specific and
> > > well-thought-out
> > > > plans, backed by ample, firmly committed
> > > resources, to
> > > > operate in a manner that preserves the Internet's
> > > > continuing stability. The introduction of the
> > > proposed
> > > > TLD should not disrupt current operations, nor
> > > should it
> > > > create alternate root systems, which threaten the
> > > existence
> > > > of a globally unique public name space.
> > > >
> > > > The idea that ICANN would explicitly seek to outlaw
> > > alternative root
> > > > systems is surprising, because ICANN so far has
> > > downplayed its monopoly
> > > > power over the Internet by mentioning that others could
> > > set up different
> > > > root systems.
> > >
> > > Actually, there's nothing surprising at all about this
> > > development.
> > > Alternatives to the ICANN root are the principle threat to
> > > ICANN's
> > > power. Even if ICANN has mentioned the possibility of
> > > alternative
> > > root systems, it never seriously entertained any such idea.
> > > Sooner
> > > or later ICANN was bound to make rules about root
> > > servers. Since the
> > > operation of new gTLDs is the weak point in
> > > ICANN/NSI's monopoly,
> > > both because they are a threat to NSI's (and therefore
> > > ICANN's)
> > > revenues and because the new TLD registries could
> > > become the
> > > birthplace of alternative root systems, ICANN has
> > > naturally come to
> > > the realization that the new TLDs cannot be allowed to be
> > > run
> > > independently or, horror of horrors (for ICANN), in
> > > cooperation with
> > > the already-existing alternative root server operations. For
> > > example, none of name.space's TLDs will be accepted by
> > > ICANN for the
> > > simple reason that they are served by a proprietary root
> > > system
> > > functioning independently of NSI's root zone. The same
> > > goes for
> > > IOD's .web, if IOD were to insist that it be set it up in
> > > conjunction with the ORSC root server system. And of
> > > course this
> > > applies equally to .union or any other new gTLD.
> > >
> > > These rules, so necessary for the continuation of
> > > ICANN/NSI's
> > > monopoly of the Internet's TLD zone, make of all TLDs -
> > > existing
> > > gTLDs, ccTLDs, and new gTLDs (including chartered
> > > ones) - nothing
> > > more than aliases of .com, which .org and .net have
> > > already become.
> > >
> > > This is why I proposed, to the Small Business
> > > Administration, the
> > > IFWP, this list, and the existing alternative root server
> > > systems,
> > > that everyone interested in new TLDs get together in a
> > > conference to
> > > discuss
> > > the implementation, organization, and future of alternative
> > > internet
> > > identification methodologies.
> > >
> > > Given the ability of ICANN to enforce within its name
> > > space - via
> > > the UDRP or a more restrictive successor to it - the
> > > prevailing
> > > rules of SLD registration, there can be no freedom of
> > > choice in that
> > > space. Not only the trademark associations but the U.S.
> > > security
> > > agencies will oblige ICANN to maintain and increase its
> > > control over
> > > domain name allocation, which is destined to quickly
> > > become even
> > > more restrictive than it is now, so that eventually it will be
> > > equivalent to frequency allocation in the radio spectrum.
> > >
> > > Anyone who thinks that ICANN, NSI, and the DOC are
> > > going to allow
> > > unrestricted digital communication within a name space
> > > that they
> > > control is living in a dream, or rather a nightmare. Nothing
> > > can be
> > > done in the context of the USG's ICANN-controlled
> > > Internet to
> > > preserve freedom. Eventually, the root will be split from
> > > outside
> > > the U.S., when other countries become tired of having
> > > their
> > > communications manipulated. If the .union people, or
> > > whoever else is
> > > proposing a chartered TLD for non-commercial use, are
> > > content to
> > > have their communications controlled by ICANN and the
> > > USG, they can
> > > accept being a part of the ICANN root and running an
> > > alias server
> > > for NSI. If they want to control their own
> > > communications, they will
> > > have to create or join an alternative root.
> > >
> > > ======================================
> > > ======================
> > > Michael Sondow I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org
> > > Tel. (718)846-7482 Fax: (603)754-8927
> > > ===============================================
> > > =============
> > >
>
