[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] new WG on chartered/sponsored TLDs
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@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