<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga-roots] ICANN Policy -- revised version
On 21 Jun 2001, at 22:19, Dassa wrote:
>
> |> On 2001-06-17 03:35:12 -0400, L Gallegos wrote:
> |>
> |> >Dassa, do you have any idea how many roots and TLDs there are |>
> >right now? Do you know how many online registration systems are |>
> >in place and how many of the TLDs are represented in them? There |>
> >will be a rush? The rush is on - big time.
>
> Actually I do, and I am also aware that a large number of TLD's in
> other name spaces to the legacy root have no to very few 2LD's under
> them. However, my reference to a rush was related to the TLD's
> themselves. It is not difficult to set up a root server and to
> establish a TLD. No more difficult than setting up a few name
> servers. If there was the possibility of having a TLD recognised by
> ICANN with little effort, I'm sure a large number of people would jump
> at the chance. The biggest difficulty in establishing a TLD in any
> name space is to get the clients.
So small is illegitimate? I guess some of the ccTLDs should be
kicked off the net then? Certainly they should not be in the USG
root if they have only a few SLDs, right? I guess it's just fine to
duplicate the smaller ones since only a few SLDs would collide. It
would be only a small problem, so why even bother to with it? If
someone puts a colliding ccTLD in a root with the potential to gain
market share, but is small today, that's all right. OTOH, all small
enterprises should be closed as well or relegated to non legitimate
business status and their names and products stolen by the
corporations for their own use. Heck, why not just co-opt all small
business and nationalize it. The Soviet Union did it. They wanted
to take over the world, too. Oh, and let's not forget the non-coms.
Get rid of them, too. They're just a drain on the corporations and
they certainly give the IP interests a fit. And while we're at it, let's
continue to insure that individuals have no say in the matters
concerning them. Why even bother to pretend interest in
cooperating with the users? What do they know anyway.
You see, Dassa, it is really just one issue. A few in a small group
want to make sure that they control the Internet and would prefer to
control all commerce and communications. It's really that simple.
In order to move ahead with the fleet of tanks, they cannot give an
inch to a free market. Johnathan Cohen said it quite well in
Stockholm. If ICANN recognizes even one TLD, it will open the
gates and ICANN would have to recognize claims for legitimate
TLDs. Cooperation means loss of control. Instead, ICANN will
continue its practices of breaking the DNS in the name of "their
root." If they allow an at-large to flourish and elect the mandated
number to the board, they could lose control. If there is an
Individual Domain Name Holders Constituency, the few voices
could be drowned out by those who are most effected.
ICANN is supposed to be a technical coordinating body. Instead it
has become a governance and supra-law making body with a
totally closed agenda. In addition, it is only doing so via contracts
and the fact that it has the leading market share. The board had
better hope they hold on to that market share. It's really all they
have for legitimacy.
Leah
>
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
>
> --
> 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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|