At 08:26 PM 4/1/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>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?
Irrelevant, they're definitely NOT going to do that, the USG won't let
them, period. Are you going to claim otherwise? Your statement here is
pointless.
>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?
Non-starter and as irrelevant as your previous comment. In this case, you
ask a question that has already been answered. In this case, another
message I wrote this very morning.
>> 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.
Your point? Are you disagreeing with the requirement? You certainly can't
be disagreeing with a solution that isn't being presented.
>> 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.
First off, I presented this case as a hypothetical. The actual case, which
you are completely ignoring, is the overlayment. This hypothetical is to
highlight the limits of current technology implementation. Note that I did
NOT say "capability". Optimal capability is better than this, but it is not
completely deployed. Also, there is no current problem with this because
they are not allowing new TLDs. When service is denied, whether intentional
or not, service is still being denied. Do you disagree that this is a valid
problem scenario?
Why do you make such a stupid statement? What is your point?
>> For this reason, the
>> root-servers must acknowledge private TLDs, even if they don't list them in
>> the roots.
>
>Oh sure.
Again you make these blank statements. What is your point?
You make blank statements and present no points.
___________________________________________________
Roeland M.J. Meyer -
e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet phone: hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com
Personal web pages: http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
Company web-site: http://www.mhsc.com
___________________________________________________
Lead, follow, get out of the way .... pick one!
