Re: [ga] China confirms alternate root for TLDs

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dr. Dierker and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
stakeholders/users,

Indeed I believe as do most of our members that the free market will act

as a "cleaning agent" for and towards China.  China's ministry of trade,

communication ect., do recognize this fully and as such shall take
whatever
steps necessary, and only when necessary they know or believe best
benefits their role in the free market place.  ICANN may have a role
to play, and so far have not played that role in the best interests of
global consumers as you right but bluntly indicate.

As China has moved forward with IPv8 and IPv9, so it has boldly
moved forward with it's own root structure...  So it seems that
China's strategy is healthy for China now and maybe so in the
foreseeable future...

Hugh Dierker wrote:

>    Strictly on IP matters, won't the market take care of it's self.
> China is already cleaning up their forged clothing practice. And lest
> we forget they have some big sporting event which will draw world wide
> attention.
>
>   Now ICANNs failure to identify and notify of this situation is
> nothing less than gross negligence.
>
>   OTOH China should be allowed to do as the please unless it harms the
> rest of us.
>
>
>   Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>   Karl and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
> stakeholders/users,
>
> Exactly right and a very distinct point Vini, and his media
> misreporters
> have failed to correctly report on and/or about. But thankfully more
> accurate and responsible media providers are doing so in a more
> in depth manner...
>
> Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Hugh Dierker wrote:
> >
> > > You did not address whether or not this can "hurt" the "net" as
> the
> > > rest of us use it.
> >
> > > I am having trouble finding the harm. I rely on experts like
> yourself
> > > to break it down and tell me why it is bad.
> >
> > Despite the shrill noises emitted by Stuart Lynn's ICP3 there is no
> > technical harm caused by competing roots.
> >
> > There are old versions of bind that wrongly accept "additional"
> > information that may get them confused if they come across a name
> server
> > that honors a different group of root servers and provides a set of
> root
> > NS records in a response. But hopefully that version of bind is on
> its
> > deathbed, or dead, by now. Newer code is more immune.
> >
> > As for user-level harm - Here in the USA a few decades ago the
> telephones
> > only had 0...9 on the rotary dial. But with the advent of touchpads
> we
> > got # and *, which enabled a whole slew of new services. Of course
> those
> > who wouldn't give up their rotary dial phones had a hard time. The
> same
> > is true with new TLDs found in competing roots - there will be some
> pain
> > felt by those who chose to live in a few-TLD world, but that will be
> their
> > choice.
> >
> > There will also be some pain because some roots will have tlds .com,
> .net
> > ... .ewe .foo .blap while others will have .com .net ... .ewe .quack
> .bark
> >
> > In other words there will be different boutique TLDs available
> through
> > different roots. Well, that's life as the boutiques try to earn
> their
> > place in the sun and grow for acceptance by all root operators. It's
>
> > called "marketing" and "building a brand".
> >
> > The key element is not competing roots, or even imperfect
> intersecting
> > of sets of TLDs offered by different roots, rather it is
> consistency: .com
> > ought to have the same contents no matter who offers it, .ewe ought
> to
> > have the same contents no matter who offers it.
> >
> > And that is where trademark law becomes our friend - trademark law
> is
> > designed for exactly this purpose, to let consumers have a means to
> > distinguish and identify goods and services (TLDs). To do this we
> allow
> > trademark (TLD owners) to duke it out to find out who has the right
> to
> > label their goods and services with a particular mark. That process
> is
> > well established in law; we don't need a body of internet governance
> to do
> > it.
> >
> > --karl--
>
> Regards,
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
>
> "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
> Abraham Lincoln
>
> "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
> very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
>
> "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
>
>
>
>
>

Regards,

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

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"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