Return to New TLD Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: jandl
Date/Time: Tue, June 26, 2001 at 8:22 AM GMT (Tue, June 26, 2001 at 4:22 AM EDT)
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.5 using Windows 98
Subject: Sparks


>>      Still, ICANN President M. Stuart Lynn and others have put companies that operate alternative naming systems on notice that when ICANN selects a second round of new Internet domain names, it will not be forced into giving them the gTLDs they currently operate. <<

Giving them the gTLDs???? By what authority does ICANN GIVE an existing business its own business?  What they are doing is TAKING the existing business product and handing it to competitors without regard for registrants, users or the DNS.  They put a great spin on it, but the bottom line is they have broken their MOU and will break the DNS.

>>"There should be clear notice to those out there on alternate roots: If they choose a top-level domain because they think they can move faster than we, that won't prevent us from choosing it," said ICANN board member Jonathan Cohen. "Otherwise, it's open season." <<

That's right.  It's really good karma to draw a line in the sand and say they will deliberately continue to break the DNS and to heck with all the peons out there who dared to be in business before they were.  After all they are above the law, right? 

At the February hearing (House Telecommunications Subcommittee) Rep. Pickering said that ICANN was formed so that they could avoid the APA.

From the transcript of the hearing:
       ["Mr. Pickering:  This is the dilemma for us and has been for the very beginning.  The reason we have ICANN is to avoid the APA, the Adiminstrative Procedures Act, as much as any reason.  We didn't want the APA to apply to ICANN."]

Is that a clue?  Rep. Tauzin asked Vint Cerf if ICANN has the right in law to overrun a root (TLD).  Answer was "we're only responsible for our root."  (a non-answer).  The comment was made that ICANN answers to no one but God himself and it is questionable whether they answer even to Him.

Another exerpt:
      ["Mr. Cerf: Let me turn this around for just a moment and point out for any alternate root to work you have to go and modify the customer's personal computer to point to the alternate root but not the U.S. Government root.  So already there has been damage in some sense done to the architecture because now that particular customer has to be modified specially instead of what comes naturally from the manufacturers..."]

WOW!  Does anyone here understand this pot of disinformation?

First:  "modify customer's computer" - we do that every time we install software.  Prior to Win 95, if you wanted to connect to the net, you had to enter the settings your ISP gave you.  Today, some have disks for you to do that, but many still have you input the information. 

Second: "damage to architecture" - huh?  If you point to another root, you get the same information you would get from the USG root, plus more.  Damage?  It lightens the load on the government servers.

Third:  "What comes naturally from the manufacturers" - Rubbish!  There is no default on your personal PC to point to the USG root.  You set up to point to either your ISP based on those instructions, or to another source - your choice.  The ISP chooses where they wish to point.  It's all choice.  The ONLY default is a single text file that happens to ship with server software that takes one minute or less to change on a server.  If software distributors changed that file, it would be an instantaneous shift to another root.

Let's understand something, shall we?  The power is in the market share.  Most of the world sees the USG root because it's the simple thing to do.  Software bundles a file and it happens to be a text file that includes a limited set of TLDs.  Sysadmins all over the world are changing that file.  No one can control what any individual does with the settings on his PC.  Networks are controlled by those who own them and they have the right to configure them the way they choose.  You have the right to allow or disallow any traffic you choose within your own network.  You choose where you point to the Internet for your source of information.  We all do it every day.

As more system administrators and individuals choose to look at other sources of information, the market share shifts, a bit at a time. 

Look at it another way.  Years ago, WordStar was the dominant word procssing package.  Along came DOS and WordPerfect.  People liked it better, so the market share shifted and away went WordStar.  Then MS came out with Word and the war was on.  With a few dirty tricks (delaying delivery of necessary code to Corel), MS took over the market share and now it is the dominant office productivity package. 

That does not mean the market won't shift again.  Linux/Unix is still the dominant operating system for servers even though MS is trying to break in.  Linux is gaining in the desktop arena.

ICANN/USG has the dominant market share with distribution of the rootzone file, but that could change tomorrow.  ICANN manages one root. manages one root.  The PacificRoot manages one root... The ideal, of course is "a single unified rootzone" but that DOES NOT mean a single root system.  It DOES mean there should be a single list of TLDs to choose from with no colliders.  ICANN just blew that out of the water.

Things change.

ICANN rules the world?  If the world is economy driven and ICANN's backers control e-commerce...  What if there was a root that was a-political, unbaised and offered choice world-wide - all technically viable TLDs?  It's just market share.

In the meantime, we have ICANN that will break the DNS to prove they have the power.



Message Thread:

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy