[ga] Re: [Politech] Karl Auerbach replies on U.N. Net control and many, many top-level domains

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Karl and all,

I am sorry I am late in responding to Karl's thoughts
which I am well aware of as they have basically not
changed in several years.

I tend to agree with much of Karls well expressed
thoughts and ideas below.  Indeed they for the most
part reflect the real world, which some, such as the
ICANN Board and staff have sought to deny or
ignore all together.  The same is even more true
with the UN and many of it's member organizations.
Hence leaving leadership where it belongs really, in
the hands of innovators and risk takers.  This is what
real commerce is all about, and so it is true on the
net as well and it should be so!

Declan McCullagh wrote:

> Previous Politech message:
> http://www.politechbot.com/2005/10/04/will-the-un/
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Politech] Weekly column: Will the U.N./Bush administration
> split the Net?
> Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 00:12:40 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@xxxxxxxx>
> References: <4343237E.60503@xxxxxxxx>
>
> > Power grab could split the Net
> > By Declan McCullagh
>
> I think that you might have misstated a few subtle points.
>
> It is possible that even Paul Vixie and I would agree that one solution to
> the question of DNS governance would be for all the root server groups to
> use the identical suite of top level domains with exactly the same
> delegation information.  In other words there would simply be replica root
> server systems that all serve up the same menu of identical TLDs.
>
> Such a world could be commercially interesting if some root server
> providers were to specialize on the basis of accuracy, responsivity, or
> availability.  But the standard of service provided by today's
> *.root-servers.net is nothing less than superlative.  A new offering would
> have to be extraordinary to induce anybody to switch.
>
> However, many countries (or regions) will view it as a matter of national
> pride, if not of national security, to offer root servers that are not
> perceived as being in a position to do data mining or poison responses at
> the behest of the US (or some other country that is perceived to have
> divergent interests.)
>
> Clone roots may also have reason to come into existance during the
> recovery from natural or human disasters as the victims try to build their
> network infrastructure from the inside-out as the rest of the world tries
> to rebuild from the outside-in.  But those would usually be short-lived.
>
> So there are reasons why clone roots could come into existance.  But as
> long as they are exact data clones then my guess is that there won't be
> much of a fight.
>
> (I am playing a bit lose with the fact that DNSSEC might introduce some
> issues even with cloned roots, but that question has not been fully aired,
> much less answered.)
>
> Where the troublesome differences and concerns start to grow are in the
> following two issues:
>
> Issue #1. Whether different root server groups could offer different menus
> of TLDs.
>
> Issue #2. Whether TLDs with the same name must contain the same contents.
> (In other words, might there be a .com with contents different than that
> maintained by Verisign, the ICANN designated registry for the its instance
> of .com.  This isn't hypothetical - this kind of situation was created
> when ICANN selected .biz even though there was a prior existing TLD with
> the same name.)
>
> I think that issue #2 contains the outcome we all most fear.  And it is a
> situation that I think we can all agree deserves to be prevented.
>
> Yet do we need technical limitations or institutions of internet
> governance to ensure consistency of same-name TLDs?  I think the answer is
> no:
>
> Inconsistency between same-named TLDs can be prevented simply by
> considering each TLD to be a brand and allowing the registry for that TLD
> to "police its brand" through well established mechanisms for trade and
> service mark enforcement.  I don't think we need to invent any new
> mechanisms of worldwide internet governance for that.  (Nor do I think we
> need put any new kinds of legal weapons into the hands of intellectual
> propery owners - they have demonstrated a predisposition to swing them
> without looking.)
>
> With issue #1 the question gets muddy and I believe that issue #1 is the
> proper frame for where we ought to be debating.
>
> As a practical matter with multiple roots there probably would be
> considerable overlap from root to root - pretty much every root group
> would have the same offerings of core TLDs, such as .com, .net, .org ...
> and probably the entire suite of NTIA/Verisign/ICANN TLDs [and ccTLDs]
> known today.)
>
> The crucial point is that there would be some areas of non-overlap.  For
> example, some root server groups might have my .ewe on the menu, some
> might not.
>
> Whether that is acceptable or not is the point of contention.
>
> One might say that the question is moot: There's really no technical way
> to prevent this from happening short of some worldwide ban - but where
> would the authority from that come from and how could it be enforced?
> And besides, doesn't such rigidity fly in the face of the end-to-end
> principle, not to mention the principle that everyone should be able to
> use the internet in the way he/she choses as long it doesn't harm someone
> else?
>
> And there are many people out there who want to have new TLDs so they can
> make "the big bucks" that others have made.  That is a pressure that is
> going to be hard to resist.  In fact ICANN's reluctance to grant new TLDs
> has create a rising flood of pent-up demand.
>
> On the other hand there would be situations in which you would receive a
> domain name (or URL/URI) that you could not resolve through whatever
> system of roots you subscribe to.  For instance I could ask you to call me
> at sip:karl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Some people find that to be unacceptable because it means that someone,
> somewhere might find it hard to communicate with me.
>
> I, personally, have the opposite point of view.  I find it to be an aspect
> of freedom of choice - If I make myself known via a domain name that is
> one of the lesser, boutique TLDs that are not widely honored, then that is
> one of the consequences of the choice that I have made.  I do not consider
> it my duty and the duty of every user of the internet to make ourselves
> accessible to everyone in the world.  Rather, I consider it a matter of
> choice whether we want that or not.
>
> What is of interest to me in this is that the question is not a technical
> one but rather one of social and individual rights and values.
>
> Yet much of the debate is cast in the frightful language of technology
> with overtones of internet catastrophe.  That tends to scare away those
> who believe they have nothing to say in these matters or who believe that
> their opinion is irrelevant because the lack deep technical credentials.
>
>                 --karl--
>
> _______________________________________________
> Politech mailing list
> Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
> Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827