<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Non for profit TLDs - CINICs
Peter and all remaining assembly members,
Peter de Blanc wrote:
> Perhaps another way to develop this idea, would be to have a .TEST TLD
Why? This has already been tested...
>
>
> You're right, it is not a non-profit TLD, but it may be a way to get
> something new into the root without politics- just so we could all see what
> would happen, what load was placed on the global infrastructure, etc.
>
> This TLD could be used for testing divergent multi-lingual domain names, dns
> sec systems, and internally by the second-level domain holders for other
> types of testing.
Some of these tests might be useful.
>
>
> By agreement, search engines would NOT crawl the content of webs in this
> space.
> Maybe the manager of the domain could be the IETF. registrations could be
> done on a cost recovery basis, say for $ 5.00 US or less.
God no! Not the IETF, please!!
>
>
> we might find that the introduction of new TLDs is a much "bigger deal"
> politically than technically. ;-)
Agreed completely! I think it is pretty much excepted that adding new
TLD's is only a big political deal, not technical one. And this is due
mostly to large IP and TM interests....
>
>
> peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Marc
> Schneiders
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 11:23 AM
> To: Jefsey Morfin
> Cc: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] Non for profit TLDs - CINICs
>
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> > At 08:01 13/09/00, you wrote:
> > >On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > > > It is theoretically possible, if the ccTLD is set up as a co-operative
> of
> > > > the registrants/name holders.
> > >You are right. Do you know if such a registry exists? If not, why do we
> > >not set one up and apply for a TLD with ICANN *now*? I'm serious. There
> > >would be so many advantages to a cooperative registry. For one it
> wouldn't
> > >make profit. The domains would be as inexpensive as possible. It could
> > >limit the number of domains one could hold. It could do its own UDRP :-)
> >
> > Marc,
> > I incorporated two TLD non profit associations for common management
> > of the ".sys" and ".wiz" TLDs by the name of .SYS and .WIZ.. (We joke
> > at this common interest NICs as "CINIC") These two TLDs correspond
> > also to specific addressing semantics:
> >
> > - .sys is for registering formats.
> >
> > like http://*-schneiders*.sys or http://ibm-.sys allowing the
> Schneiders
> > family to freely manage nameservers accepting from:
> > http://marc-shneiders.sys to http://ted-schneiders-Jr.sys
> > and IBM to freely set-up
> > http://ibm-france.sys, http://ibm-uk.sys etc...
>
> Jefsey, I am not at all an expert on DNS. I doubt, however, that your
> system would work with the present "canonical" nameservers, as you seem to
> indicate yourself further down. Since it will take a while to change
> things, necessarily, I presume, on the RFC level, it is hardly a good idea
> to spend $50,000 now to get a TLD(-system) that will not work until 2005.
>
> Moreover, half of what you propose (adding something in front of the
> domain name) is already done since DNS was born. Is the other half really
> worth the trouble?
>
> > This has been documented on the ICANN site before Yokohama (this
> > was proposition #3). The user target spans site and machine systems;
> > local portal chains like mine, product lines, multinational groups,
> > families, NGO with many local sites on different servers, VPN, etc...
> >
> > The rules for Membership are simple:
> >
> > - yearly Membership is $ 1000 (to be reviewed by GA
> > - participation to management cost in proportion to traffic
> > - UDRP during the 30 first days only and open to TM having
> > registered in class 42 less than 30 days ago. If a TM owner is
> > serious about protecting his TM in that TLD he has 30 days after
> > registering its TM to register it. (The delay extends to 3 month
> and
> > to every class 42 TM during the bootstrap period)
> > - commercial Members must have at least 100 DNs in other TLDs
> > according to that format.
> > - in case of format conflict, the priority goes to the Member having
> > first registered his 100th DN in other TLDs
> > - to jointly promote the ".sys" TLD (with a monthly award) and
> > actions. The launching action was to donate $10.000 to the
> > @large effort: for 150.000 pros around the world knowing us.
>
> I find the barier rather high. My idea (which is no more than just an
> idea) was one with a much lower level of entry, one that anyone in
> the first world in any case, could afford. And firmly within the
> present implementation of DNS.
>
> > The development required is a modification of our nameservers
> > software to accept a default character semantic (still to be
> > finalized). There is no change in the user nameserver software.
>
> Yes, I would imagine any resolver believes what the nameserver tells
> it. But to work globally your sys-named should be used by all nameservers
> around. Or do I not understand you correctly?
>
> > The management is extremely limited. The office is ready. The
> > line is ordered.
> >
> > - .wiz is a rule oriented system.
> >
> > Its purpose is to open a real service on a test basis first and
> > then to be an operational test bed for all technical and legal
> > issues involved.
> >
> > We are studying a system where the Members could set
> > up and check the rules dynamically, there would therefore be
> > no management.
>
> This sounds interesting. I wonder how you avoid that I e.g. would claim an
> awful lot of names, if there is no management and it is virtually free, as
> you say below.
>
> > The purpose of the rules would only be to lead to an URL and
> > the format of the entries would be url compatible, so there
> > would be no change in the DNS.
> >
> > http://marc.schneiders.wiz or http://schneiders.marc.wiz
> > or http://father.son.marc.scheneiders.wiz would lead to
> > the same http://marc.venster.nl
>
> And email?
>
> > The system would be open to Members only and for a fee
> > voted by the GA. The idea is to have it at the lowest cost or
> > free (for some or for all or on choice) so we may study the
> > largest panel of users and of TM/intellectual propriety cases.
> >
> > I have asked the WIPO questions about the semantic of the URL.
>
> Don't wait for the answer. I have never received one from them.
>
> > BTW these two TLDs show that the DN concept is to be legally
> > defined. In both TLDs the Registry do not know about the DN
> > being really used. The owner is free to add and remove: this is
>
> What third (or higher) level domains are used in the present system is
> also free.
>
> > freedom of speech and intellectual property. If I chose an URL
> > which quotes a famous line, can the author of the line make
> > an UDRP? It is well accepted that a line is free for quote, if
> > you say who wrote it. If the line is famous everyone is
> > supposed to know who wrote it, if it is not how do you know
> > if the user known the writer ... billions of lines are produced
> > every years....
> >
> > 1. Unlimited number of by the book TLDs
> >
> > In using these two TLDs (different ways) we planned opening an
> > unlimited number of "ULD" ie. TLD-to-be SLDs. Example:
> > ".txu" is the Texas TLD as per the extension of the ISO 3 letter
> > list proposed in 1969 by the Library of Congress. The ULD is
> > ".txu.sys" used to register http://domain_name.txu.sys until
> > a ".TXU CINIC" is created, accepting http://domain_name.txu
>
> I find this very complicated. Why not have .txu immediately, if it is
> something useful (which I think it is not)?
> >
> > 2. Worldwide ring of nameservers
> >
> > As a non profit association we consider that TLDs may
> > help countries to develop and support local cultures. We
> > want to support regional ULDs, but we want also to develop
> > local top level operations in developing countries to support
> > that TLDs. The idea was to start with the French overseas
> > territories with a nameserver physically installed in each
> > one for a "non stop 24/365 world ring service" providing on
> > the spot training to young local engineers.
>
> O, please, no, do not put any critical nameservers on little islands in
> the Pacific. Doing that is just a polictical statement using something
> that is hardly interesting to most people. Sure, I am "proud" that I run a
> little nameserver, but I am clever enough not to put it in my apartment on
> an ISDN line.
>
> > >If 5000 people would each "bet" $10, and pledge another $25 when the
> > >application is approved, it could be done.
> >
> > I had not so many people!
>
> But you would need only 50, isn't it?
>
> > But I had made the amount until yesterday. I suppose now that
> > I will go without asking anything more to the ICANN (thx!!!), or
> > that some big money will pick my ideas (my/our [*] only protection
> > was to make it public today in here and for you to discuss them,
> > so it becomes full common knowledge).
>
> This is not clear to me. Are you going to apply? Did you get the money
> together? Or not?
>
> --
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> % Marc Schneiders ------- Venster - http://www.venster.nl %
> %* marc@venster.nl - marc@bijt.net - marc@schneiders.org *%
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
>
> --
> 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
>
> --
> 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
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k 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 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|