Thanks for narrowing the discussion down to some potential facts. Your item 1) is hypothetical in terms of showing disruption. You have not identified any instance of disruption, so I will ignore it till someone shows some indication of disruption caused by the mere existence of non-conflicting TLDs outside the reach of ICANNic blessing. We need to note the fact of the collision around .BIZ, and we are ready to discuss ways to resolve it any time ICANN (or its .BIZ Franchisee) wishes to engage in serious discussions. By our reckoning, .BIZ was created by legitimate IANA actions, and is at least as legitimate now as .WEB, and deserves better treatment than it has received. But, please take note that ORSC has no control of the .BIZ registry (aside from the decision to include it in the ORSC root). Any resolution has to be between the two registry operators (or their agents). They are the parties with vested interests at stake. Now for your item 2). Should small market segments should be destroyed, just because they are small? What will be gained? What will be lost? Where would the Internet be if this argument had been made in 1973 (it was), or '75, or '80, or '87? The ORSC supporters are obviously not in the game to make great fortunes, like some TLD registries you might mention. And our ORSC participants are not getting rich supporting ORSC. Admittedly it is not a profitable business. Fortunately we have no stockholders;-)... ARPAnet was also not profitable. Neither was USENET? Is NETNEWS profitable now? Does it matter? What is the problem? I have been asking our detractors for some evidence of actual disruption being caused by the existence of ORSC TLDs, which disruption might be eliminated by elimination of the ORSC TLD's existence. I still have not seen one that stands up under review. Cheers...\Stef At 5:22 PM -0400 8/6/02, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: >On Tue, 06 Aug 2002 01:33:48 PDT, Einar Stefferud said: > > Please cite a real case of success at our supposed motive of disruption. > >OK. You can count this one of two ways: > >1) One "real case" for each TLD that ORSC has deployed that ICANN hasn't >(include .BIZ in there). > >2) Zero - but in that case, you have to acknowledge that ORSC is an ignorable >player that doesn't actually matter to anybody. > >You can't have it both ways - if ORSC is used enough that it matters, then >by definition every use of a TLD that isn't in ICANN's root is disruptive. >The only way that can be NOT disruptive is if ORSC isn't used.... > > >-- > Valdis Kletnieks > Computer Systems Senior Engineer > Virginia Tech > > >Content-Type: application/pgp-signature > >Attachment converted: Viking5:Untitled 1 (????/----) (00006F33)