Return to Unique Root for DNS Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: friedrich
Date/Time: Fri, June 1, 2001 at 1:46 PM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.5 using Windows NT 4.0
Score: 5
Subject: Where does the trip go? What shall be the effect of "one root only"? (5 min. to read)


       Dear all;

ICANNs decision of choosing 7 new gtlds was good, even though the
restriction to 7 new gtlds may have been artificial.

The fact that ICANN chose an already existing gtld, dot biz, was a
serious mistake, though.

If Leah Gallegos Atlantic Root is now described as "threatening the
stability of the internet", it is a weak excuse, because it was not
her, but ICANN who introduced a colliding, second dot biz tld.

But, why shouldn't several "internets" exist on the same planet?

Don't we know of the existance of globally broadcasted channels
(radio/tv), who obviously all respect the existence of other globally
broadcasted channels and their frequency? Of course we do.

In the Internet this "frequency" is somewhat replaced by a
distributed unique address. We see this adress as protocol.domain.tld:

The dupliction of a domain name in another tld therefore doesn't
create any problem per se: and or
www.mydomain.web do not hurt each other, even if they are run by
different authorities in different roots and therefore may be called
different internets.

But the duplication of a tld is similar to broadcasting two programs
over the same frequency.

Your browser won't be able to understand the difference between: (NeuLevel) and (Atlantic Root).
Why? Well, because you entered the same words, but behind those words,
two different numeric addresses, resolving in different roots, stand.

If a "governing body" for globally broadcasting decided to create a
new radio station called "CNN", stating that the existing CNN had no
rights to its existence, because it wasn't "authorized" by his newly
created governing body - would you think that to make sense?
Certainly not.

What, if this governing body even chose to authorize the other
company to use the same frequency or "space" as CNN currently does
for broadcasting?

Everybody would disagree, because the effect would be, that people
listening to either of the two "CNNs" would no longer be able to
understand a single word - with e.g. two speakers talking at the same
time. The radio only sees one frequency and can't be blamed for that.

This may serve as an example to illustrate ICANNs mistaken policy in
duplicating the dot biz tld.

No matter how big or small the existing dot biz registry was/is, it
is certainly an unfortunate decision to create confusion and instability.

It is unexcusable for ICANN to state they "didn't know about the
existance of dot biz before".

Had ICANN followed their own fora, where the Atlantic Roots dot biz
was dicussed at length - long before the 7 new gtlds were selected -
they would have known of it. In fact they must have known of it.

ICANNs decision becomes even more difficult to understand, as
they could easily have chosen another new gtld, like the widely
supported dot web, which wouldn't have created any confusion at

Is it ICANNs tactic to create a problem in order to be able to offer
a solution strengthening their own position?
It would certainly be wrong to try to solve a self-created problem of
stability through limiting worldwide networks to the
one "administered" by ICANN themselves.

No doubt, such a step may hand further power over to ICANN,
but it deprives existing competitors of their existence, even
if they respected ICANNs A-Root servers, the cctlds and gtlds.

Does ICANN really intend to create an "illegitimate" space for
everyone not obeying their immediate authority?

Is this what ICANN was created for?

Wouldn't that be similar to giving an existing country a new name in
order to be able to throw out all minorities, who do not agree to
enter and obey the major party? Do they have to accept being treated
like criminals and/or live in poverty?

Mr. Lynn doesn't like the idea that "anyone outside ICANNs" authority
may make money with the internet:
His opinion seems to be surprisingly unreflected.

The consequences resulting from his proposal would not contribute to
the stability of the Internet, but simply to the might and power of
ICANN itself.

The train has left the station into the wrong direction.
It seems to be ready to create an accident with another, smaller
train with only "a few thousand people" on board.

The fate of these people seems to be irrelevant. We accept that they
may loose legitimate rights. ICANN simply says, that all this
happens "for the benefit of the Internet" or for the "millions of
other people", who will take profit from their "legal" speculations.

It is not very nice of ICANN to cause a problem with a minor
competitor (Leah Gallegos dot biz), in order to be able to "break her neck".
ICANNs self-legitimation to such action isn't very convincing

In my eyes this isn't the proper way for gaining more power and
influence over the internet(s) / roots worldwide.

Allow me the question:
Are we still living at the level of the "iron ages" in the internet?

Friedrich Kisters



Message Thread:

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy