On Wed, Mar 31, 1999 at 11:37:13PM -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
[...]
>
> There are a number of complications if the root-servers started to point to
> a different TLD root-server than the one set up by the VPN TLD registry.
> Were ICANN, or NTIA, to assign the VPN TLD to someone else, there would be
> an instantaneous conflict which, given the infrastructure investment, would
> result in instantaneous litigation. Given prior use and trademark law, this
> litigation could be successful.
Uh, Roeland, if ICANN decides that it needs to change to a Swiss
corporation, what are you going to do? Sue in Swiss Court? Do you
have a Swiss trademark?
Also, since it is you who are using a TLD for a private purpose when
a lower level domain would do just fine, in contradiction to every
grain of common sense about good network management, why do you
think ICANN should pay any attention to your private TLD?
> Some of this remains to be seen. It is
> possible that the VPN TLD registry does not want to be in the root-server
> system. In this case, given the technical conflict, the VPN registry must
> still be able to deny the root-server system the ability to assign that TLD
> to anyone else. The mechanism afforded by trademark law seems to be
> helpful, in this regard. This is still under evaluation, although
> preliminary research appears promising.
Oh sure.
> In the case of a purely private network, built on an internal TLD (call it
> PNET), as you suggest, there is a bleed-though effect. Although the
> internal IP block is a private one (not visible outside that block) and the
> public IP addresses are only gateways, the node within that private network
> still have access to the Internet via the proxy-servers(gateways). Were the
> root-server to assign a public TLD, called PNET, then none of the internal
> nodes of the private PNET TLD would be able to access any node on the
> public PNET TLD. This is a Denial of Service issue.
No, it isn't. They are not denying your customers any service that
they are currently getting. It's true that the customers won't be
able to get to someone who registers a name in the new official TLD
-- that's something that registrants in that TLD might consider for
about 2 milliseconds, but that is their problem, not ICANNs.
If you make a stupid choice and run a private TLD this way, it is you
who are limiting your customers' future access, not ICANN.
> For this reason, the
> root-servers must acknowledge private TLDs, even if they don't list them in
> the roots.
Oh sure.
> At one time, I was rabidly against the entry of the trademark contingent in
> these forums. It appears that they have become [unwitting?] allies. As much
> as I don't like WIPO tactics and practices, some of their points aid my
> cause. They present new tools that may be useful.
Go for it :-)
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
