Stef and all, Well I see that this subject matter has come yet again. Lets see if we can handle it this time in some sort of coherent manner together. So in that sprit, I will start off, with some comments to Stefs observations/comments. (See below)... Einar Stefferud wrote: > Subject: Is the "ROOT" really onwable? > Was: Re: [bwg-n-friends] FORW: ORSC "estoppel confusion..." > Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 21:53:09 -0800 > From: Einar Stefferud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I can understand that the USG might think it owns the franchise for > .com, .org, and .net, and that they own the franchise for the IANA > version of the ROOT ZONE file, but I seriously doubt that the Govt > Owns The ROOT itself. I doubt that there is much doubt that the USG feels secure in the fact that they own the current Legacy ROOT and the ROOT ZONE file, and under GOV contract allows NSI to manage that ROOT from an operational standpoint. > > > When I speak of The ROOT itself, I am speaking of that interesting > abstraction which is the collected set of all DNS TLD names that are > actually used in the Internet, which ROOT has no name, but is often > referred to as ".", though it is not ever represented with a dot. I > vividly recall the arguments about whether Internet DNS names should > terminate with a "." to designate the nameless root (which clearly > lurks unseen at the right hand end of every DNS name;-)... > > Jon Postel was adamant about not showing the ROOT "." when the DNS was > first proposed, and since then The ROOT has always been known as not > having any name. (One of the issues at the time was "what if this > terminating "." falls at the end of a sentence in text?" Or what if > it is mistaken as an end of sentence in the middle of a sentence?) > (All this was resolved by omitting the root's ".";-)... > > Next, this nameless ROOT is actually wherever Internet edge systems > point to for root service, not just where the USG says they should > point. So, now, tell me again what the USG owns and what such > ownership might mean. Or better yet, please tell me what it means. WHere and if there are ISP's that point to other ROOT "." is not really material in and of itself. If they wish for their customers to "See" any or all of those Domain Names under com/net/org, than as a primary ROOT they will be likely pointing to the USG/NSI's ROOT or".". This does not however preclude that either other ROOT's can't co-exist or be secondary ROOT's, or other wise additional Registries. > > > I seriously question whether The DNS ROOT is ownable by anyone, and > whether or not anyone can claim to have the "authority" to control > where everyone points for root service. What enforcement tools does > anyone have to force every user of a system on the edge of the > Internet to only and always point to some specific IP addresses for > ROOT service to resolve TLD names? > > Have you noticed that all INTRAnets attached to the Internet have > private ROOT servers set up behind their firewalls, in part to control > who insiders can connect with on the outside;-)... So, we have > obvious and legitimate instances of whole companies using root servers > based on other than the USG designated ROOT ZONE > > Further, what authority does the USG )or anyone else) have outside the > US territorial limits, if I grant (which I do not) that the USG has > some such authority inside the US? > > So, in this very murky space, just exactly what is it that the USG is > going to transfer to ICANN that gives ICANN the right to control all > TLDs that might someday appear in the DNS ROOT? In actuality they do not. AN in addition legally the ICANN cannot if there are some TLD's, regardless of "Type" of TLD they may be, unless or until the ICANN has filed a Trademark on those specific TLD's in accordance with the USPTO regulations that have been discussed to some degree here before. > > > I suspect that there are some very serious issues here that are going > to have to be sorted out in court, and I think that we should get > started real soon on creating the court test for an early launch. Agreed! And I am pleased to FINALLY to see that you have come around to that thinking Stef, as I have mentioned it to you several times privately before. In that light, I will ask/challange YOU and the ORSC ar they prepared to initiate such legal proceedings in conjunction with a co-litigant? > > > In short, who is to say that someone else cannot set up another DNS > root zone, copy the ICANN (branded) ROOT ZONE and augment it with > additional non-conflicting TLD names, and offer it for free to the > Internet at large? Nothing. However I would also say that it is not necessary to "Copy" the ICANN's/IANA/USG/NSI's ROOT ZONE file, but to rather integrate it with and existing one. SO are you game to take on this jointly Stef? Is the ORSC or the BWG? > > > Now, consider another very interesting case: > > I have an INTRAnet behind a Firewall, and I give it a TLD name which I > do not at present intend for anyone to know about, which helps to > maintain security. Since these kinds of DNS TLDs already exist, I am > not just imagining them out of whole cloth. > > Now, what about potential conflicts when ICANN adds this > already-in-use private TLD name to its ICANN (branded) ROOT? Allot depends on ICANN in this instance. My guess is that they will use whatever pressure that they can muster to snuff out any other competition before it gets a chance to get off the ground. Failing that, it is likely the ICANN will seek DOJ and DOC assistance from a legal standpoint. > What > happens when the INTRAnet with this same name decided to come out in > public and join the net? I suggest that we give this kind of name a > formal acronym of pTLD, to go with gTLD and ccTLD, since it exists and > is quite clearly a legal kind of thing to create and use, and it > should also have some rights in the DNS name space. Agreed that such a "pTLD" should have equal rights in any DNS system as long as there is cooperation amongst those ROOT ZONE's and different "." ROOT's, which is possible, contrary to some's belief. > > > I will admit that if none of the involved parties knows about the > other, that then they have a sticky problem to sort out, but lets > suppose that they are not hiding from each other, so the INTRAnet > owner tries to reserve its chosen "private use" TLD by registering > with ICANN or with some other (Open) Internet Root Service? Suppose > this pTLD is actually announced with big public advertisements and web > pages and a specific written notice to all known ROOT services. If you don't already know this, this is in process presently... > > > Does the USG have some rights to the unspeakable name of the IANA > (branded) ROOT that allows it to own all TLD names, whether they are > as yet known or not? I would venture a guess, that if they are being used in commerce, and can be shown as such, than the IANA/ICANN/USG/NSI legacy ROOT or "." must find a method of removing any obstructions as well as recognizing these "pTLD's". > Does the INTRANET owner have to get permission > to use its name in private in order to reserve the right to use it in > public at some later time? Not currently, no. > > > Frankly, I think there is a serious lack of legal precedent in all > this, especially since we are not confined to the geographic > jurisdiction of the USG! > > Just some food for thought;-)... > > All this leads me to believe that what we need for the root is a broad > consensus agreement on how it should be administered with voluntary > coordination among all the involved parties. Agreed. ANd this is what the White Paper is all about, but unfortunately the ICANN views this differently, and choose to be arbitrary in their actions in Singapore with respect to the formation of the DNSO and the Accreditation Policy. > the requirements are > obvious, and I do not see any great reason why it requires a central > imposed authority solution to obtain the required administrative > coordination. Very true, although it would be easier to do so, but perhaps not preferable. > > > Cheers...\Stef > > PS: I also challenge the analogy of name-spaces to real-estate. > Real Estate is clearly in fixed and limited quantity, while name > spaces are essentially infinite in dimension, if we do not > constrain it artificially, as we are now doing by prohibiting new > gTLDs. > > >From your message Sun, 28 Mar 99 22:55:36 -0500: > > } > }>But the title to the root is something that, like the ultimate title to > }>the land under the US, is something that is based more on history and bold > }>assertions than a strict lineage to the creating deity. > } > }The assumption that the U.S. government owns the root is the foundation > }on which ICANN has built its authority. (see below) > } > }>> can ICANN acquire legally enforceable authority over time.... > }> > }>Congress could do another retroactive grant of authority as it did in the > }>tax case. > } > }ICANN will acquire most of its legal enforceable authority not by > }legislative action, but by contract. > } > }If you take as a given ICANN's authority over the root, ICANN can > }contract with registries and registrars (for names or numbers) who want > }the right to work in that space, and this contract will govern that > }relationship. In the names arena, the new proposed ICANN-registrar > }contract contains a provision that reads: "In the event that ICANN > }establishes a policy or procedure for resolution of disputes concerning > }SLD names that by its terms applies to Registrar, Registrar shall adhere > }to the policy or procedure..." This in turns gives ICANN the ability to > }impose some authority downstream to the name registrant. > } > }ICANN has the ability to affect all those who need access to the root to > }operate their business (registries and registrars) and all of those who > }do business with those companies (such as domain name registrants). And > }nobody else. > } > }(What isn't exactly clear to me in this contract model is how (if at all) > }ICANN will exert authority over protocols...) > } > } -- Bret > } Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
