Re: [ga-roots] Re: [icann-eu] Letter to Dr. Vint Cerf

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Thomas and all,

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)?

  All true Thomas.  But getting the funds for doin this advertisment is not

that difficult.  Leah only needs to get funding to do this if she already
doesn't have it.

>
>
> 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?)

  Short answer is yes...

>
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208