[ga-full] Re: [ga] new WG on chartered/sponsored TLDs

[Bob Davis <bob.davis@netzero.net>]

Joe and all DNSO'ers,

Joe Kelsey wrote:

> Kent,
>
> I like your idea of going back to "first principles" in order to try to
> resolve some of the deep-seated conflicts that have plagued the entire
> DNS debate on all lists that it has ever been discussed.

  Good and valid point I believe.

>
>
> I too, feel that there is too much "talking past" each other.  If, after
> how many years, we cannot even get people to agree on the basic
> definition of terms like "registry", "registrar", etc., then I fear that
> the debate will never get resolved.

  I don't know of anyone that has a disagreement on the difference of
"Registry" and "Registrar".  But I do believe that you are right that many,
including yourself, are talking past each other.  But when one espouses
that participants don't respond to certain posts or more then a few
posts, it is difficult for me to abide by your sincerity here.  :)

>
>
> The recently held discussion over rules of civil behavior and fairness
> point out just how difficult it is to agree on terms like "freedom" and
> "censorship".

  Agreed.  the terms of "Freedom" and "Censorship" are mutually exclusive
concepts.

  One cannot have Freedom and tolerate Censorship.  Conversely, one
cannot have Censorship and believe in Freedom.

>
>
> I am at a loss exactly how to resolve the disputes, since I mostly agree
> with the current definitions used by the new registry (nsi-registry) and
> the new registrars.  I get the feeling that you believe that Christopher
> Ambler continues to have an alternate definition for these terms, but
> they seem so basic that I cannot imagine a different definition.
>
> However, as to "chartered" and "sponsored" TLD, I remain skeptical about
> their ultimate usefulness.  I know that the ccTLD's occupy this niche,
> but I really fail to see that any specialty TLD can have any sort of
> lasting value absent a wealthy monopoly to back it up.  Otherwise, you
> will have an ultimately unmanageable orphan domain problem.

  This is indeed one point of view, but is without merit based in any
fact.

>
>
> On the other hand, the advocates of unlimited gTLD creation may prove
> that no one wants to have such chaos in the world.  Or, the spread of
> such a vast number of TLD's will force us to use directories,
> effectively squashing the market for "designer" TLD's and bankrupting
> most private registries.

  Interesting view, Joe.  Worthy of debate and discussion OPENLY.

>
>
> In the end, directories make all "designer" TLD's unnecessary.  This
> includes both sponsored, chartered and cc TLD's.  However, the advent of
> a real directory system is still seemingly far off.  I can almost see
> the point of approving private TLD's if it wasn't for the long-term
> support issues.

  The market will rule here.

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

Bob Davis
INEGRoup-West Director

__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html