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:
e.g.
www.mydomain.com.
The dupliction of a domain name in another tld therefore doesn't
create any problem per se: www.mydomain.com and www.mydomain.ch 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:
www.mydomain.biz (NeuLevel)
and www.mydomain.biz (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
all.
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
either.
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?
Sincerely,
Friedrich
Kisters
Switzerland