<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] On being democratically global
Dan:
A whole lot more than "one thing," actually. But this puts the "policy"
where it belongs.
I forget which country it was, but I was reading a thing today which said
how country X,
that just got its bright new, shiny TLD, a .cc, was itself going to set
up all the rules for the
internal operation of that .cc, as a number of other countries already have.
That leaves
every country in control over that on which it should have control,
namely, its own
internal affairs, and all it needs from the rest of the world is connection
under a common
prototcol. This is in lieu of having ICANN and the USG try to set rules for
the whole
world, when they have not the slightest authority to do any such thing. (We
gave the USG
back its computers and phone lines, didn't we?)
On the acquired rights, whoever wants to remain in the .com, .net, etc.,
zoo, they would
be free to do so. Those who want to "go global" instead could do that. That's
competition.
The Internet started out with USG owned software, wiring, servers, etc.,
under IPv4.
Anyone who wanted to -- including any country, any group of countries, any
consortium
of Internet professional associations, etc., could start up an IPv6 net,
once the technicalities
are ironed out. Or even a second IPv4 -- a dot, which is one ASCII code,
defines one
root; an * would define another, etc. This time, start out right. I could
set up a server in
my game room, call the cable company, and soon I'd be running SPAM to all
you folks
suggesting that you all sign on to Bill's net -- 64 bit domain names, pick
what you want,
but don't worry about any .com, .net extensions or the like, since there
won't be any extensions.
And there's 2^64 domain names, which is 4,611,686,018,427,387,904. Room for
everyone.
There's even one for you! :-)
Bill Lovell
Dan Steinberg wrote:
3CE81FA7.21A39E28@videotron.ca">
Bill,
Ummmmmmmmm there is only one thing wrong with this picture. acquired
rights.
what the #$$% do you do with all the names that already exist under the
existing TLDs??????
In the interest of being democractically global and canonical and all
that... you introduce a whole slew of different problems. You gonna be
the one that goes through everyone's webpages and fixes the broken
links? what about the domainname.com domainname.net that both reside in
the US?
etc etc.
ok...so there's more than one thing wrong with the picture
"William S. Lovell" wrote:
The Internet goes everywhere, right? All you need is phone lines (or
cable, satellite, etc.), right? Well, here's a couple of models:
1) There are no TLDs, but only "domain names." That's how it started
when under the NSF, and before it became commercialized and thus fell
prey to NSI and the big money interests. Some little bunch of gnomes
has a master server (with satellites all over the world for security
purposes), and what these gnomes do is keep the list up to date, with
those who want to get or keep domain names paying a periodic fee that
pays that little bunch of gnomes and buys some servers. Simplicity
itself, and various entrepreneurs could do a land office business in
providing WHOIS data and other supplemental services that would help
people in finding who they wanted. IPv6 could handle it.
2) There are TLDs, but they are all country codes. You have to be in
country X in order to register under tha
t .cc. So the gnomes have
created files; one for .de, one for .us, one for .fr, and so on. Same
story, only slightly more complicated, but would surely cut down on
the search times if, say, one knew that the company being sought was
located in the U. S. rather than Germany or Japan or China.
Under either scenario, all the big "policy" decisions would disappear,
as would the destructive, undemocratiic results of commercialization.
The "bunch of gnomes" (not ICANN or any similar such trolls under the
bridge, but some internationally agreed upon little bunch sitting out,
perhaps,on some isolated island protectorate of the U.N. that needs
the money).
KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid)
:-)
Bill Lovell
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|