From: Vadim Antonov [mailto:avg@kotovnik.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 11:22 PM
> It has to do with refresh rates, just like DRAM.
It has to do with the way the redundancy is handled in the brain.
Long-term potentiation is not a terribly reliable process.
If you ask my wife, she'll catagorically state that short-term potentiation
is equally unreliable (yes dear, I promise to remember the milk, next time).
Actually i do not propose any new layers. The "layer" in
question exists
already, in form of address books, hyperlinks and search engines.
Okay, I'll grant you that.
> up, you will be assimilated. You have been in retreat for
years. You just
> didn't realize it.Actally i am not in retreat. I just have a funny habit of
doing different
things, seeing new things and trying to know what other people are
thinking.
I just have a problem with being told what I can do, what I can see, and
what is correct to think. The Unified root theology has a bad habit of doing
that.
What i learned so far - if technology aims to change human nature, it
fails. It is very naive to assume that brotherhood of
technologists will
stay cooperative when real money gets in. I do not like it
any more than
any other techie, but let's face reality. The control of domain name
space is passing from technologists to lawyers and politicos.
Only because there is a single point of control. We need a de-centralized
system.
> The real answer was to stop the incursion of trademark
crowd into the DNS.
> You can thank Dave Crocker, Kent Crispin, and their IAHC
for that smooth
> move.You can't stop them. They are the guys who are making laws.
The only way
to actually stop them is to organize revolution. Can i opt out?
I disagree, as I have also disagreed with the ORSC in this. The ORSC has
opted out of ICANN involvement. I have not. BTW, there are laws that protect
existing business, even a TLD registry. I continually remind my self of the
result of Patrick Henry's boycott of the US Constitutional Convention. It
happened anyway and he wasn't part of it.
> Now if you think that they'd stop just because you have retreated
> behind yet another layer of abstraction, you are indeed naieve. They
> will come and hunt you out.What i am proposing is to remove the contention point. When
"names" do not have intrinsic value, nobody'll fight over them.
An identifier on that level will always have some intrinsic meaning. Your
plan will only effect the degree of value.
Now, the lawers will keep
hunting trademark violators - but with nothing as tangible as
single name,
they will have to prove the intent to defraud; for now
courts think that
just acquiring a well-known brand name (thus depriving
"rightful" owner of
its use) is an ample proof of such intent.
Actually, existing is already that way. UDRP circumvents existing law with
contract law. You give up your rights to a court trail, with UDRP. UDRP is
administered by WIPO, not ICANN. UDRP decisions often run counter to US
trademark law, or anyone elses TM law. UDRP pushes the burden of TM
enforcement out to the ICANN, away from the legally designated steward, the
TM holder.
> The inclusive root zone efforts, like that of the ORSC and
PacRoot, are
> actually trying to keep the root intact. We saw the
probability of outfits
> like new.net, years ago. We also recognised what it meant.It means that the ICANN soapbox is only fine because
Microsoft has bigger
fish to catch. Now imagine they ship an OS with a resolver with
"additional" functionality - conviniently pointing to _their_
registry if
"public" root didn't yield the result. You cannot charge them
with unfair
competition because this is just an additional convinience to their
customers, and besides they already do similar things with
keyword search
and messaging. If i understand correctly, no O.S. vendor has
a contract
with ICANN specifically prohibiting expansion of search
capabilities. I
think the present new.net scandal is bound to attract their attention.
Actually, this has already occurred. Have you taken a good look at Win2K
yet? Pay particular attention to Dynamic DNS and Active Directory.
> We spoke the warnings, we spoke them again at the Nov00
ICANN meeting
> that it is okay to create conflicting delegations. After all, the
> ICANN is doing it ... why can't they? There is no law that regulates
> that.Because the current DNS has a single contention point, it is very
vulnerable. It can be very easily taken over by a large
corporate entity.
The let's design a better system.