RE: Apology (Re: [ga-roots] Re: Criminalization of alt roots)

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 08:29 AM 5/7/01 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>At 20:55 06.05.2001 -0400, Gene Marsh wrote:
>>Thank you, Harald.
>>
>>I would also agree that *just* being in an alt.root should not confer
>>inclusion in the ICANN root.  However, an operational, proven TLD in an
>>alt.root should certainly be considered.  There are several (if not many)
>>TLDs that meet this criteria.
>
>With this position, I disagree.
>
>I contend that participation in an "alternate" root proves very little 
>about the competence, fairness and committment to stability of the 
>proposed operator.
>
>Possibly even less than the ability to pay USD 50.000, fill out ICANN 
>forms with a convincing business plan and show up at meetings with a good 
>story proves about a proposed operator.

On the other hand, registries which have been online with working DNS since 
1995 show infinitely more stability than most ICANN accredited registrars 
or even the VC funds behind them.

IETF Pop Quiz:

Q. What's more important to Internet stability?
    a) Quarterly earnings for ICANN registrars or
    b) The ability to fill out ICANN forms or
    c) Using $50,000 of internet infrastructure investment to fund ICANN 
board expense accounts or
    d) A proven history of stability in the face of overwhelmingly 
unfavorable odds

Of course, not everyone is going to get this answer right. ;-)


Best Regards,

Simon Higgs

--
It's a feature not a bug...

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html