Re: [ga-roots] Re[4]: [ga-icann] interesting California law to consider

[Stefan Probst <stefan.probst@opticom.v-nam.net>]

On 06:52 17/06/01, William X. Walsh said:
>Hello NameCritic,

(snip)

>You are so antiICANN without any possibility of being otherwise, that
>you assume that anyone who doesn't blindly agree with the alt.root
>position that let's any person who wants to create a TLD is 100%
>behind everything ICANN says/does.

William, your intimate knowledge of the alt.roots astonishes me more and more.
Some weeks ago, I had a look at most of their websites, and found, that the 
majority of them have some more or less stringent requirements concerning 
which TLD they would include in their root.
You know obviously more than their websites say.



>Like you I believe in an aggressive namespace expansion.  ICANN has
>not done that yet.  However, I also recognize that such an expansion
>MUST take place in a controlled and technically sound fashion.

I am very interested to learn from you. What I understand, Paul Vixie sees 
no technical problem in a huge expansion of the root, i.e. the inclusion of 
thousands of TLDs.
So, where are the technical problems, which require "an expansion [to] take 
place in a ... technically sound fashion"?
Which are the technical problems, which forbid, that the root is expanded 
at a similar pace like the gTLDs?

Rgds.
Stefan

--
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