[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga-roots] Re: [icann-eu] Letter to Dr. Vint Cerf
- To: Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>, "[ga-roots]" <ga-roots@dnso.org>, icann-europe@fitug.de
- Subject: Re: [ga-roots] Re: [icann-eu] Letter to Dr. Vint Cerf
- From: "L Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 03:48:03 -0400
- Comment: This message comes from the icann-europe mailing list.
- In-reply-to: <20010510092412.E15570@sobolev.does-not-exist.org>
- References: <3AF99BF3.19994.694F4D@localhost>
- Reply-to: jandl@jandl.com
- Sender: owner-icann-europe@fitug.de
On 10 May 2001, at 9:24, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> [Please copy me on responses, I'm not subscribed to ga-roots.]
>
> On 2001-05-09 19:35:15 -0400, L Gallegos wrote:
>
> > Canonical meaning what? The orthodox view of the DoC controlled
> > rootzone? You are forgetting that education is working and a
> > paradigm shift is beginning. What is considered canonical today
> > may be quite different tomorrow.
>
> Canonical meaning "the kind of DNS" expected by the average user. Or
> by the large majority of users. You know, Leah, the average
> Internet user (1) doesn't care about all this dns policy business,
> and (2) hasn't ever heared about you. So why should he expect that
> .biz is something else than what is presented to him by his
> (probably large) ISP? And why should he expect that it's a .biz
> different from the one presented to him in banner, radio and
> possibly TV ads (yes, .tv has been doing radio advertising where I
> live)? Why should he expect that it's a .biz different from the one
> announced in the TV news (yes, the domain name decisions were on the
> man TV news broadcast [tagesschau] where I live)?
>
> While all this is really not nice and most likely means that you can
> just forget about your version of .biz, and the work you put into
> it, it seems inevitable at this point. You'd have to put in a vast
> amount of money in terms of marketing and probably legal costs in
> order to even have a chance.
>
> Let me repeat the argument which Jefsey, Kent and I are all making:
> Duplication means that user expectation will not be fulfilled to
> some degree. Now, Kent and I are arguing that the majority of users
> will basically expect the version of .biz with the larger public
> visibility - which will almost inevitably be ICANN's version.
>
> The difference between Kent and my arguments is mostly in the detail
> who could be held liable for any damage. And, I admit, the cache
> poisoning makes a strong case for his version of this detail.
>
> (BTW, this brings up an - metinks - interesting technical question:
> What checks are currently performed on NS records? Would it be
> possible to register a .biz server as a name server for some domain
> right now?)
Why not? There are .WEB nameservers.
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/
>