name.space -- sorry your argument makes no sense Re: nettime: [Fwd: rewired Zeit- name.space]

[Gordon Cook <cook@netaxs.com>]

Paul Garrin writes that he has been told by the US Department of Justice:  

Under US Law, the current rootserver hosts must provide access
to their facility by their competitors on a non discriminitory basis.
(We just need to ask them for it!)  The U.S. Department of Justice, Anti
trust division has confirmed this to the name.space legal counsel.
"Your case is a carbon copy of MCI vs. ATT" they said.

Cook: Sorry I simply don't believe that they would say such a thing.
Especially "Your case is a carbon copy of MCI vs. ATT" .   How about
scanning the letter putting it up on a web site so that folk can call THEM
for verification? Lawyers generally don't stick their necks out which such
a definitive statement. What you claim is NOT CREDIBLE.

Garrin:  If the Rootservers refuse, they are in violation of the law and
subject to Anti-Trust violations.  According to the USDOJ representative,
There is no argument in this case.  The law is clear in their opinion.
(the case begins this month).

Cook: If the rootservers refuse what? To run YOUR destributed data base?
Instead of IHACs? Or are they going to run yours on even days of the month
and IHACs on odd? And if Kashpurev hears about this, then he wants in and
if they allow YOU in why won't they have to allow Alternic in? THEN YOU
GET TO RUN EVERY THIRD DAY?

The rootservers are there to give AUTHORITATIVE SERVICE. IE RUN THE ONE
COPY OF DNS database THAT IS ACCEPTED AS LEGITIMATE by the WHOLE Internet.
This is by definition a **monopoly** situation. It has nothing to do with
a phone network that can be used by multiple companies. 

What you want to do in building a distributed database sounds like what
IHAC is doing. What makes you think the Internet is compelled to adopt
YOUR solution rather than its own? IHAC was formed by as close to a treaty
process as the internet has. Postel working with the Internet Society
puting together folk from ITU, WIPO and other interested organizations.
What gives you the right to assume that YOUR solution is to be accepted
and not that of IOC, IANA, ITU and WIPO? Or are you asking that people
have to pay you to get in your database as well as pay to get in the
ISOC/IHAC database? If you want your database to be a part of the process,
then apply to IHAC to become one of the **registries** contributing to its
distributed database.

As far as I can tell you are not even on the radar screen of the technical
discussions going on. Have you been participating in the newdom mail list?
If you have I am surprised that I have never seen anything about you from
the technical spill over of that list. Again, anyone who invests in your
attempts to create an alternative to the alternative that has now been
officially sanctioned by the internet community and expects the investment
to PAY OFF with something technically usable is beng quite foolish.

Oh.....by the way..... You said the case begins this month.....what case?
I read 50 or 60 technical and non technical lists..... I have never seen
your name before and I have read megabytes of blather over the dns issue.
Tell me if you have a court date for the next two week how is it possible
that the entire on line media has missed it?

In your post in answer to the economist you say:  Name.Space is developing
an enhancement to the current domain name software enabling a
dynamcally updated, shared database in which independent, competing
registries can share all toplevel domains without conflict.

Sorry I am not impressed. You are proposing to do what the internet
community has already sanctioned IHAC to do. Please tell me how a database
can have more than one set of authoriative records? Either yours or
theirs. It is NOT a case where the courts can allow EVERYONE TO PLAY. Lets
assume you are right and to keep you happy the internet waits until it
gets an international treaty. What makes you think the treaty will adopt
YOUR solution? And again with database records at the level or *ROOT*
servers ther can be only *ONE* authoritative set.

Besides it will not wait.... The odds are high that the cooperative
agreement will end before March 98. Well before then the IHAC solution is
supposed to be in place.

************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet               For subsc. pricing & more than
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA     ten megabytes of free material
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)              visit   http://pobox.com/cook/
Internet: cook@cookreport.com             For NEW study: EVOLVING INTER-
NET INFRASTRUCTURE, 222 page Handbook http://pobox.com/cook/evolving.html
************************************************************************


On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, MediaFilter wrote:

> Gordon Cook <cook@netaxs.com> wrote:
> 
> >Gongrip is absolutely correct in his criticism of Garrin.  garrin sounds
> >like a european version of what domain name pirates eugene kashpurev and
> >others have been trying to do in the US.  Garrin can make all the domain
> >names that he wants but unless he gets the ten or so top level domain name
> >servers to use them, 99% of the internet will not be able to get to
> >them....  They simply will not work.
> 
> Paul Garrin replies:
> 
> Gonggrijp is misinformed in his knowledge of US Law and
> the legal work which has laid the groundwork for the
> universal resolvability of name.space.
> 
> Under US Law, the current rootserver hosts must provide access
> to their facility by their competitors on a non discriminitory basis.
> (We just need to ask them for it!)
> The U.S. Department of Justice, Anti-trust division has confirmed this
> to the name.space legal counsel.
> "Your case is a carbon copy of MCI vs. ATT" they said.
> If the Rootservers refuse, they are in violation of the law and subject to
> Anti-Trust violations.  According to the USDOJ representative,
> There is no argument in this case.  The law is clear in their opinion.
> (the case begins this month).
> 
> I am not a "european version of Eugene Kashpurev" as you put it.
> You don't even know me so how can you make such a judgement when
> you are totally uninformed?  I live in NYC, not anywhere in Europe,
> and there are fundamental differences between name.space and alternic
> making comparison of the two rediculous.  If you don't know what they
> are, you are in no position to compare or judge.
> 
> 
> > I do not deny all conspiracy
> >theories but the one about NSI and SIAC is wrong.
> 
> It is not a conspiracy theory.  It is a fact that SAIC is the largest
> private contractor for the NSA and the Pentagon, and that when many of the
> NSA and Pentagon and CIA personnel "retire" from government life, they work
> in the private sector, doing many of the same things they specialized in
> while in the Government employ.
> 
> For more information on the subject, please read:
> http://caq.mag/caq/CAQ59NetSpooks.html
> 
> >I have had excellent
> >sources telling me the details of the inside  of this for almost two
> >years.
> 
> good for you.  what did your "sources" tell you?
> 
> >Anyone who does business with garrin and expects in return to
> >receive a domain name that is valid through out the Internet is being
> >quite foolish.
> 
> That's your opinion.  You could be wrong.  Just wait and see.
> 
> --Paul Garrin
> 
> 
> --
> *  distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission
> *  <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,
> *  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
> *  more info: majordomo@is.in-berlin.de and "info nettime" in the msg body
> *  URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/  contact: nettime-owner@is.in-berlin.de
> 

--
*  distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission
*  <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,
*  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
*  more info: majordomo@is.in-berlin.de and "info nettime" in the msg body
*  URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/  contact: nettime-owner@is.in-berlin.de