[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [icann-eu] Domain Name Economics
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: [icann-eu] Domain Name Economics
- From: Jefsey Morfin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 18:15:56 +0200
- Comment: This message comes from the icann-europe mailing list.
- Sender: email@example.com
This thread is not thge easiest way to approach the subject but is quite
interesting. Confusion was that "nuclear arsenal" is a widely quoted image
of Peter de Blanc (co-Chair of the ccTLDn AdCom), in different meaning (the
destruction capacity of the adversary) partly enacted by China.
On 01:36 07/06/01, Thomas Roessler said:
>>In order to be able to give such guarantees,
>(The context was about stability of domain name offers.)
So from this, I gather you talk about continuity of the service rather that
stability of the network (or stability in the duraction). This is obviously
a real concern. But it does not concerns the roots as the iCANN, Pacific,
ORSC, Cinics, SuperRoot etc.. it concerns the TLDs: the same way .com or
IMHO the real urgency is a TLD management tool (the IEFT works on that but
VeriSign proprietary rigths are a problem). Others too. Also a secondary
server system. The work for the ccTLD will obviously be usable by every
TLD, and the other way around. This will permit more easily to roots to
offer vault services. The cooperative nature of TLDs like the CINICs (where
the registrants are the co-owners of the TLDs -cf. RFC 920
multiorganizations) make them quite immune from this kind of problem.
>>you'd have to invest a lot of money into global visibility. You'd have
>>to make sure you have a nuclear arsenal to be used against competitors.
>>Now, ICANN sells (or rents, or whatever) this arsenal at retail prices,
>>while you (and Leah, and new.net) have to develop the atomic bomb
>>yourself, which is certainly more expensive.
>I have been asked off-list what precisely I mean by "atomic bomb" and
>Both terms are referring to the "mutual assured destruction" doctrine, and
>more specifically to the nuclear war analogy I gave in my original
>message: I'm thinking about destructive capabilities which are suitable to
>create an intolerable risk for any possible attacker, thus preventing
>rational attackers from actually using their own capabilities.
This is a strange military way of thinking about business and DNS name
space management. Such a praxis is certainly interesting as a kreigspiel
but in a real business world I do not now which Venture Capitalist or
reasonable corporation would want to invest into a colliding TLD. The case
of .biz is particular: it is only a tacit agreement between NeuLevel and
iCANN: you get .biz and you pay for the legal dispute with ARNInc.
This is also I am afraid a basic misunderstanding of the issue. Many as you
are trapped into a wrong understanding of the inapropriate word
"alternative. This word is mostly used by some as an insult and by no one
as a flag. Its only use may be to qualify the root market: there are
several alternatives: between a globally free and open vision of the DNS
name space management and a restricted and paying vision by the iCANN, Real
Name, Name.Space, New.net, etc... between a full use of the DNS by the
iCANN and the so called "alt.root" and plug-in based/http oriented like
New.net, Namsliger, etc...
But frankly I do not know any proposition corresponding to what you fight.
May be could you be so kind as to point one to me. This seems to me lefts
over from an archaic dispute about the creation of the iCANN.
>Translated to the DNS, players would need what one may call "destructive
>visibility": A TLD must be visible on a scale which makes it impossible to
>launch a competing version of this TLD without experiencing all the
>negative effects Kent Crispin's internet-draft lists. In such a
>situation, it wouldn't be economically reasonable to engage in a battle
>about this TLD - the best possible outcome (from the attacker's point of
>view) would be a destruction of both players.
This seems to me Kent's youth war (IANA creation). Kent is not taking about
the reality, but creating a virtual reality where Vint's move about .biz
would be acceptable. In the real world this is not the case.
IANAG but as said previously I never met a case, except ".biz" by Vint
Cerf. But even in this case, the motivations are purely political. In this
particular case you may be right: Vint may want the destruction of both
players (their most sensible response would be an alliance).
>Obviously, destructive visibility doesn't need to mean global visibility -
>but, on the other hand, near-global visibility like the one ICANN can
>offer to new TLDs is certainly destructive.
This seem to indicate that you consider that ".biz" like decisions could be
a basic strategy for the iCANN and be repeated: the iCANN trying to
destruct the existing non-iCANN TLDs. I doubt the iCANN would do that. The
impact on its credibility and on the business would be too devastating. You
are talking in theory, but real financial interests in the non-iCANN TLDs
are becoming more and more intermixed with thoses in iCANN dependent
market. Decisions regarding possible DN policy alternatives are considered
now at many levels and places.
Obvioiusly this is purely an open and private position and I may be wrong.
But this is also a position based upon a daily inner and involved practice
of the matter.
>Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/