<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga] Non for profit TLDs - CINICs
Peter;
Thank you for your interest. The concept I propose is simple and I think
there is a simple alternative to .TEST. Let me quickly review it.
- a group of people creates a CINIC (common interest network
information center) as a non profit organization. That CINIC has the
purpose to maintain a general information site and to validate DNs
for its Members using the group's TLD
- the CINIC has therefore to face the cost of setting up that TLD
whatever it may be (including or not or in part the $ 50.000). The
only possibility for it is to propose validations under ULD. ULD
(upper level directory) is the word we coin to define a temporary
SLD becoming a TLD, a double support being maintained for a
while.
Therefore ULD = future TLD . hosting TLD.
The CINIC members and the public is made aware that when the
test is completed the hosting TLD will be removed and the two
registrations will coexist only for a while.
What you propose is the .TEST TLD to be created to that end.
But do not think this can be done easily. You also think about
the operations terms. IMHO:
- the CINICs must perform their registrations:
- the test is also about CINIC management
- the test is also about cost management and I do not want to
prevent anyone to propose free DNs
- the test is also about innovations where domain names may
be differently handled (.sys) or event disappear (.wiz).
- doing otherwise would bring a business to a central registry
while such CINICs could cooperate with local NICs
- search engines must crawl them because
- there would be no interest in using an ULD
- the test would not represent real traffic/user interest
- I object to interdictions on the net.
- there is an alternative:
to use existing specializing ccTLD(s) against some compensation.
If you consider that VeriSign's endorsement to .tv, .cc, .to has
transformed these ccTLDs into de facto gTLDs, I think that one
ccTLD could specialize into that. It would de facto coordinate the
choice of the new TLD names and build experience in initiating
new TLDs.
We plan using ".sys.ws" for .SYS and ".wiz.ws" for .WIZ.
Let say the considered ccTLD is "aa".
.sys addresses would be: http://format.sys.aa
.wiz addresses would be: http://anything.you.want.wiz.aa
This however can be proposed only by a ccTLD of low marketing
interest able to invest into a long list and not having yet registered
too many 3 letters DNs nor ORSC TLDs (most of them fitting the
CINIC concept).
Otherwise ULDs will use any available hosting TLD (as we will
use ".ws") and will coordinate their naming through OSRC.
Jefsey
At 05:37 16/09/00, you wrote:
>Perhaps another way to develop this idea, would be to have a .TEST TLD
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>we might find that the introduction of new TLDs is a much "bigger deal"
>politically than technically. ;-)
>
>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
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|