Re: [ICANN-EU] Interview with ICANN director Helmut Schink

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

Alexander and all,

  Respectfully I disagree with your conclusions regarding other
root structures.  Your conclusions are far to general.  As such
your conclusions ALexander commit the logical fallacy of
"Glittering Generalities".

  Other Root structures are here.  They are here to stay.  Their
use is growing and an ever increasing rate.  This may continue
depending on how ICANN behaves and if the UDRP is
radically changed.  The rate of change is already increasing
rapidly.

  Depending on HOW other root structures are managed
they can be a very useful alternative to the legacy root
structure as well as a stability enhancing one.  With the
use of a Shared Root/Floating root structure interfacing
seamlessly with the Legacy Root structure (Which has
been demonstrated to work very well BTW) the DNS
is thusly enhanced and outside of the ICANN/WIPO
political influence.  This adds technical stability, but
may be viewed as politically unstable, depending on
your point of view.  However, regardless of the
political aspect, nothing is damaged, and in fact
the DNS is enhanced, in the use of the Internet.

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Dear Gerhard,
>
> > One of the ways is of course the etablishing and publishing of alternate
> > root-servers:
> > if the At Large Community (?!) decides to support them instead of dealing
> > with an ICANN-Administration, where a user-participation is not really
> > intended, maybe the day will come, when the ICANN looks at an growing
> > paralell (alternate) universe, that is no more object to their administrating.
> > We would so have an ICANN-commercial-Internet-Community on one side and on
> > the other an At Large-Net-Citizen-Community from people, that are ruling
> > and administrating themselves.
> > If things like this are really on the way, the ICANN might take a new look
> > on the situation and think, that Users / At Large-Members are worth, to
> > have some regards to.
>
> in my view, this (alt.roots) would be the very very last and
> desperate resort if ICANN fails altogether. I recognize that
> the notion of being 'alternative' seems to fascinate many,
> but I currently don't see how this really solves any of the
> problems.
>
> First of all, if you have the impression that the
> alternative root servers are free from lawyers, trademark
> problems and the like, I think the main reason for that is that
> few people/companies care about what few people see. Some time
> ago, I calculated that the ASLAN alternative root server gets as
> many querys in a month as the 'legacy' root server A (one of
> thirteen) gets in seven minutes. This relation may have changed
> a bit, but for the majority of Internet users (and trademark
> attorneys), the alternative root servers still are simply
> invisible. As alternative root servers gain popularity,
> companies will try to sue perceived cybersquatters also in the
> alternative name space.
> By the way: E.g. the alternative Name.Space project has a Famous
> Names policy in place and "has already revoked several obviously
> infringing registrations".
>
> Secondly, alternative root servers are only root servers run
> by different people. Whether they are better or worse depends
> on who runs them (and who uses them). Currently, it seems the
> alt.roots are maintained mainly by very small companies, some for
> idealistic, some for more mundane monetary reasons.
> If there was a major decline in use of the 'legacy' (ICANN/US
> Government) root servers, I doubt that it would stay like this.
> To run a worldwide root server system, you need experience and
> money. I would not be surprised to see Microsoft.Root™ or
> AOLTimeWarnerDNS™ -- just pre-configure major browsers, open
> up some interesting sites and start a major campaign. How about
> a EU Root Server System administered by the European Commission?
> All this would be 'alternative', but would it be an alternative?
>
> Thirdly, the tipping over would play havoc with the Internet.
> Currently, there are unique assignments if you stay on the
> 'legacy' root. If there were several large name spaces, you
> would have to add the name space to the address -- e.g. I want
> to send a mail to gerhard@wendebourg.nom@icannroot, not to
> gerhard@wendebourg.nom@msroot. Now, if you are lucky, the
> different name spaces are coordinated in some way, so that
> there is only one wendebourg.nom around. But how, according
> to what rules, and by whom shall they be coordinated? What
> happens in cases of multiples claims to a TLD? There would
> be a need for META-ICANN (or rather: the problem would
> have been transferred up one level).
>
> Whichever way we choose, there will always be conflicts.
> I don't believe in any scheme that miraculously makes these
> conflicts go away. Instead, we have to find ways to solve
> these conflicts in a fair manner. Alt.roots are good in
> that they put a bit of pressure on ICANN by showing that
> there are other options, but I doubt that they are the key
> to success.
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k 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 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208