Re: Theology [Was Re: [icann-eu] Re: [ICANN-EU] ccTLDs to ask forBoD seats?]

[Marc Schneiders <marc@schneiders.org>]

On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, at 13:49 [=GMT+0100], Roberto Gaetano wrote:

[Earlier I typed:]
> >.... As long as all roots carry the same main
> >TLDs, there is no problem. Most people wouldn't even notice it.
> 
> What is the usefulness of distinct roots if all carry the same information 
> about TLDs? Is it a matter of principle, or what?

The same "main" information... The usefulness is in the added TLDs,
and in the fact that there is not a single point of failure, thanks to
alternatives for the NSI-root. 

> >We do have a problem, when one root throws out certain TLDs, or starts
> >a conflicting TLD, ignoring the same one that exists in another root.
> 
> If you are thinking at ".biz", for instance, I'm sure that "most people 
> wouldn't even notice it" either ;>)

Which does not make it better. Not at all. I think.

> >And of course this action will be defended by the root that takes it,
> >by pointing out, that they are the one and only true public root,
> >sanctioned, yes sanctified, from above, and the others vile heretics,
> >which should be burned, as soon as possible.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand.
> People that point to the ICANN (just for identification purposes, I know 
> ICAN does not control it) root will continue to see the DNS according to the 
> ICANN root: they are not accessing the "alternate root's" .biz now, and they 
> would not care not to access it in the future.

How do you know what they care or do not care to see? Which .biz
people care to see (if any...), will depend on the amount of marketing
$$ put into it.

> OTOH, the few people that are seeing the DNS according to any "alternate 
> root" do see the "alternate root's" .biz now, and will continue to see it in 
> the future regardless what ICANN will put in its root.

But they will not see ICANN's $50,000 .BIZ, will they? So a
fragmentation is introduced, by ICANN. The true church does not need
to bother though. It would be against all its principles to do so. It
really cannot bother about creating splits without giving up precious
claims. It has to do this. Hans Kraaijenbrink may have been quite
right from the true-church point of view, and some others on the Board
of ICANN not firm in the faith when they did not go for Afilias' .WEB.
Then IOD's .WEB is not a strong supporter of other roots, and did ask
to be (re)admitted into the true flock. This may have saved them. 

> There's no need to burn anybody.

No, that was a bit too strong. Apologies. The strategy is probably to
let the alleged heretics burn out by themselves.

-- 
Marc Schneiders (rest in header)