>>
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.
New.net 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.
admin@biztld.net