Re: [ga-roots] ICANN Policy -- revised version

["NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

As was said though, IF there were a set of common standards that were
reasonable, then the TLDs that met those standards could be included. Now
how does how many domain names are filed under that tld have anything to do
with the discussion. The new .biz had none so far when approved. So if we go
by those standards then Leah's .biz is/was FAR more viable.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
http://www.KidSearchNetwork.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
To: "L Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>
Cc: <ga-roots@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: [ga-roots] ICANN Policy -- revised version


> On 2001-06-18 12:04:50 -0400, L Gallegos wrote:
>
> >The post referred to creation of roots and TLDs, not SLD
> >registrations.  There are some three thousand TLDs and several
> >roots that are new and more coming all the time.  I am not saying
> >whether this is a good or bad thing, Dass, only that it is
> >occurring.
>
> >It also has nothing to do with whether any of the TLDs will be
> >popular, open, restricted (chartered) or what business models will
> >be utilized.  You took the post and changed the focus of the
> >response to refer to SLDs.
>
> That was me, not Dassa.
>
> But anyway, I think that my question concerning the number of
> registrations in your alternative TLD is one which should be
> answered in order to be able to judge your remark on a TLD "rush" -
> because, of course, we could start to count all those misconfigured
> pseudo-intranets which are confusing SLDs and TLDs, and are
> certainly contributing to the TLD zoo.  However, this zoo's
> inhabitants are about as uninteresting for any ICANNesque
> deliberations as it can get.
>
> Also, a "rush" of alt.roots (and in TLDs being offered by these
> alt.roots) which doesn't coincide with a corresponding rush of SLD
> registrations under these TLDs very much looks like a rush of
> childish fools trying to play Internic - which is, frankly,
> something ICANN should indeed ignore, and on which even the
> development of a III 3 b policy would be far too much effort and
> honor.
>
> (I suppose that Kent and friends will subsume (almost?) all
> alt.roots in this category.)
>
> --
> 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