Re: [ga] Fw: ICANN's Karl Auerbach responds to Joe Sims over .kidsdomain

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Jamie,
there is a notion no one contest from either side what ever the sides. It 
is that the DNS is recursive. If you start considering the content of a TLD 
you also start considering the content of a site or of a sub-site or of a 
page or of a line. This is censorship: USCANN has a lot of experience and 
projects in that area: like the absurd plans over .org (someone told us 
about the possibility for the Congress to vote inapplicable laws, a 
possibility apparently considered by the BoD)

Recursiveness has also an advantage: it works both ways. If they exclude at 
TLD level they will be  excluded at root level. Obviously inclusive roots 
are their competition, but when you read the proposed Bill: it excludes the 
USCANN from its own root mission and actually makes the USCANN to be an 
alternative root to the one proposed to the Congress. Since the master-root 
would be defined by the Congress and the incomplete iCANN alternative 
version should be given notice to load it.

Interesting.

Jefsey




On 09:40 07/07/01, James Love said:
>The freedom to exclude is an important freedom.  If ICANN can open the
>door, at a minimum, to non dictionary TLDs, and really expand the root,
>eliminating the artificial scarcity rents, people would not complain
>about someone running a restricted TLD, any more than they complain
>about a restricted listserve, or a seal that is only available to people
>who meet the requirements of the seal (such as truste).   What we don't
>need is ICANN managing the content side of this, and we should leave
>that up to the registries and registrars, in a competitive and non
>monopolistic environment.  If ICANN has any role in terms of deciding
>who is best to run a registry, it would be for dictionary words, where
>IMO, at least some strings lend themselves to non-market allocations
>(museum, coop, union), or should be reserved for trade associations,
>professional organizations or industry groups with greater moral claims
>on the sting that they are likely to be using (the film industry for
>names like .movie, .film, .cinema, etc).   And even here, I would think
>that ICANN should just award the TLD to a good candidate, and get out of
>the way.
>
>Jamie
>
>--
>James Love
>Consumer Project on Technology
>http://www.cptech.org
>1.202.380.3080 fax 1.202.234.5176
>mailto:love@cptech.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