RE: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Working Group C

Roeland M.J. Meyer (rmeyer@mhsc.com)
Sun, 11 Jul 1999 13:09:52 -0700


This is not an issue of ICANN mandate. The ICANN would simply be just
another root service offering. Karl is talking about competition at the
ICANN level. ICANN would have no jurisdiction over competing
root-servers.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-idno-discuss@idno.org
> [mailto:owner-idno-discuss@idno.org]On
> Behalf Of Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
> Sent: Sunday, July 11, 1999 12:26 PM
> To: Karl Auerbach
> Cc: Joop Teernstra; idno-discuss@idno.org
> Subject: Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Working Group C
>
>
> This is a very interesting point, Karl.
>
> Are you advocating competing root servers or competing root
> systems? If
> you are advocating competing root systems, why? (This would be outside
> of ICANN's mandate so that is why I am asking)
>
> Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >
> > > G-C Charter indicates that our mandate is to arrive at
> consensus on the
> > > following questions;
> > >
> > > 1. Should there be new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs)?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > If yes: How many?
> >
> > Here's how I answer that question:
> >
> > There should be no limit on the number of root systems that may be
> > established by those who which to establish such systems.
> When I say root
> > system, I don't mean an individual root server but rather
> an entire set of
> > servers that operate much like the current set,
> a-l.root-servers.net --
> > one points to 'em via the named.cache/db.cache/cache.db file.
> >
> > Each such root system operator will try to attract
> customers based on its
> > service offering. This service offering will consist to
> two things: the
> > inventory of TLDs that it offers and value added services.
> >
> > Starting with the second thing, value added services - Yes, one can
> > conceive of a DNS root system in which there are benefits
> to be obtained
> > by the choice of root. For example, one can conceive of a
> system in which
> > the subscribers to that root will obtain DNS query
> responses that are
> > filtered to exclude well know porn sites. (Yes there are
> other ways to do
> > this, but why should we prejudge the best way?)
> >
> > The first thing - the inventory of TLDs: A root system operator will
> > select which TLD's he/she wants to include. That selection
> will be based
> > on what the root operator thinks would be appropriate.
> >
> > (Overall, I expect all root operators to try to trump one
> another with
> > more and more TLDs, the net result being that everybody has
> every TLD and
> > the only difference being the value added services.)
> >
> > This makes the answer to the question: let the root server operators
> > decide what TLDs they which to recognize and include in
> their "inventory".
> >
> > As for what happens if there are two or more different
> groups that want to
> > offer a TLD of the same name? Well, I'd let 'em duke it out among
> > themselves using established legal and economic methods. I
> know that if I
> > were a root operator I'd be hesitant to include any
> disputed TLD in my own
> > inventory.
> >
> > Yes, this is a somewhat "radical" proposal, but it is one
> that replaces a
> > regulated single DNS with one that is regulated by the
> competitive forces
> > and is in line with the actual technology of DNS. It also
> makes the net
> > more robust by removing a single point of failure.
> >
> > And yes, it is not a panacea. It leaves open some of the
> issues most
> > important to individual domain name owners - like that of
> > registry/registrar lock in and domain name portability.
> >
> > It also trusts to the rational judgement of root zone
> operators to avoid
> > doing economically stupid things that would also reduce the
> degree to
> > which net users can depend on DNS lookups to give them the
> answers they
> > expect.
> >
> > --karl--
>
> --
>
>
> Rod Dixon
> Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
> Rutgers University School of Law - Camden
> rod@cyberspaces.org
> http://www.cyberspaces.org
> -
> This message was sent via the IDNO-DISCUSS mailing list. To
> unsubscribe,
> send a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno-discuss" to
> majordomo@idno.org. For more information, see http://www.idno.org/
>

-
This message was sent via the IDNO-DISCUSS mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno-discuss" to
majordomo@idno.org. For more information, see http://www.idno.org/