[ga] FW: Stability of the Internet?

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roeland Meyer 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 10:16 AM
> To: 'bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com'; Roeland Meyer
> Cc: Roeland Meyer; bc@vicious.dropbear.id.au; nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: RE: Stability of the Internet?
> 
> 
> > From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
> > [mailto:bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 10:16 AM
> > 
> > > > 	There is work being done in the IETF to create 
> such a private
> > > > 	use TLD.
> > > 
> > > Where? Also, this may bring on a jurisdiction issue with 
> > ICANN/DNSO. It is
> > > the ICANN that is recommending new TLDs to the DOC, not the 
> > IETF. In order
> > > tfor that effort to comply with WIP process, it should make 
> > attempts to
> > > surface within relevent ICANN activity as well. Otherwise, 
> > ICANN doesn't
> > > know about it and can't make appropriate recommendations. 
> > I'm very much
> > > involved in that area and they are invisible to every one, 
> > in the DNSO. This
> > > effects the open/transparent process and if they don't want 
> > to catch a LOT
> > > of political flak (consider this fair-warning), they need 
> > to widen the
> > > visibility of their effort. This effects ICANN policy 
> > directly and IETF
> > > isn't a policy org. They are a PSO, not a DNSO.
> > 
> > 	The IETF work predates much of ICANN & DNSo work. 
> 
> Agreed, much of it does. I am proposing to get IETF out of 
> the policy business and in into the PSO business it is now 
> chartered for.
> 
> >     Clearly
> > 	there has been too narrow a focus if the DNSo & ICANN do
> > 	not believe that others have considered the impact of 
> >     entry points in the DNS 
> 
> That's not the issue presented. The issues are those of 
> involvement and communication. IETF is closed and tight-knit. 
> Yet, they do not and cannot recommend TLDs to the DOC. 
> Evenso, they come up with stuff that the folks that ARE 
> supposed to recommend these these things, aren't made aware 
> of. Countervailing recommendations are made, from those that 
> ARE supposed to make them, and we then have a cat-fight.
> 
> >     and that they have exclusive understanding of the 
> > 	ramifications of controlling this space.
> 
> That's a fairly deep mud-hole. Let's not go there ;)
> 
> > 	See RFC 2606
> 
> Thanks for the RFC. It will be taken into consideration.
> 
--
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