<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga-roots] Re: ICANN Policy -- revised version
Jim and all,
Good point and ending question here Jim. As you seem to already
know, most folks are more interested in arguing the political and
"Gaming" aspects of adding additional TLD's to the USG/Legacy
Roots than getting the technical side of things, such as name servers,
prepared and operational.
I also wonder how long it is going to take the IETF to get DNSext
and DNSSEC ready for prime time? I feel as though I will
likely be old and gray before these are ready. :(
Jim Fleming wrote:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12215.html
>
> Leaving the "roots" out of it, what about the TLD Clusters ?
> ISPs point directly to the "Best-of-Breed". Note, in the lists
> below, the ISOC/ICANN group seems to have the most
> problem getting anything deployed. Instead, the focus is on
> pre-registrations, lotteries, raffles, etc. Does that speed up the
> process of adding TLDs ?
>
> Also, keep in mind that each of the TLDs below has a growing
> SLD.TLD community. They will collectively not want to see their
> TLD disappear, unless they, themselves, disappear. It seems
> unlikely, the "Best-of-Breed" TLDs will disappear. Again, looking
> at the lists below, has the ISOC/ICANN selection been the
> TLDs with the longest track-record and the most stability ?
> Clearly, the answer is no, some still do not exist.
>
> When will people focus on getting nameservers working ?
>
> Jim Fleming
> http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
> http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
> http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
>
> http://www.name-space.com
> http://www.icann.org/tlds/ads1/NameSpace-gtld-appBP.html
> (* first 20 TLDs)
>
> .SHOP <<<<<
> .SPACE
> .SEX
> .ART
> .ZONE
>
> .MUSIC
> .ONLINE
> .CONSULTING
> .DESIGN
> .TRAVEL <<<<<
>
> .MEDIA
> .NEWS
> .DIRECT
> .MAIL
> .WORLD
>
> .MAG
> .AUCTION
> .FREE <<<<<
> .CAM
> .SERVICE
>
> -----------------------
>
> http://www.New.Net
>
> .SHOP <<<<<
> .MP3
> .INC
> .KIDS
> .SPORT
>
> .FAMILY
> .CHAT
> .VIDEO
> .CLUB
> .HOLA
>
> .SOC
> .MED
> .LAW
> .TRAVEL <<<<<
> .GAME
>
> .FREE <<<<
> .LTD
> .GMBH
> .TECH
> .XXX
>
> ----------------------
>
> ISOC/ICANN
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg02817.html
> http://www.icann.org/tlds/
>
> .FIRM
> .STORE
> .WEB
> .ARTS
> .REC
>
> .INFO <<<<
> .NOM
> .AERO
> .BIZ
> .COOP
>
> .INFO <<<<
> .MUSEUM
> .NAME
> .PRO
> _____
>
> _____
> _____
> _____
> _____
> _____
>
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
> To: <ga-roots@dnso.org>
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 6:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga-roots] Re: ICANN Policy -- revised version
>
> > On 2001-06-14 15:42:10 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >
> > >On the contrary, I think the statement should be strengthened, for
> > >exactly the reason that the Tucows representative gave: to give
> > >any deference whatsoever to alternate root providers would simply
> > >encourage avoidance of the ICANN process. Right now the big
> > >players don't do alternate roots for two reasons: 1) they realize
> > >the technical instabilities it would create; and 2) even more
> > >important, they realize the total chaos that would prevail if
> > >ICANN gave any credence whatsoever to alternate roots.
> >
> > These are strong and good arguments why ICANN should establish a
> > policy to ignore alternate roots. But they are NOT arguments which
> > say that ICANN has already done so in the past.
> >
> > >>I can prove easily that there is no policy: ICANN has explicitly
> > >>avoided a conflict in the case of .WEB, and it has created a
> > >>conflict in the case of .BIZ.
> >
> > >You have a pretty weak notion of "proof". If anything, what we
> > >have is clear proof that ICANN has simply been following a policy
> > >of ignoring any precedent set by alternate roots.
> >
> > A policy or a custom? There's certainly a difference between the
> > two concepts. In particular, a policy would have to come from a
> > pretty well-defined process. Opposed to that, a custom just means
> > that "we have always done it this way".
> >
> > I don't believe that blurring the line between the two concepts is
> > helpful at all - in particular given the formal role consensus
> > xpolicies play in the entire ICANN process.
> >
> > >It is undeniable fact that there is a long and continuous history
> > >of rejection of alternate roots, a history that preceeded ICANN by
> > >years. And it is I believe completely obvious that what the Tucows
> > >representative said is true: any deference to any alternate root
> > >would instantly open the floodgates, and worldwide there would be
> > >thousands of new alternate tlds immediately insisting on
> > >recognition.
> >
> > There isn't much serious disgareement on this - with two exceptions:
> >
> > - ICANN may wish to pay special attention to .WEB. It may, however,
> > only pay this special attention when it makes abundantly clear
> > why it is doing so, and that this won't be repeated with more
> > recent instances of alterantive TLDs.
> >
> > - Not paying attention to the alternate TLDs isn't sufficient to
> > keep the floodgates closed. ICANN MUST speed up the TLD addition
> > process, because otherwise new.net-like business models could
> > become more and more interesting.
> >
> > Once that is the case, alternate TLDs may create destructive
> > capacities against any colliders ICANN may add later. Thus,
> > ICANN would be forced into paying special attention to these
> > players, which would in turn further weaken the floodgates.
> >
> > We can only hope that new.net isn't the first such case.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > --
> > Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> > --
> > 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
> >
>
> --
> 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
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|
