Re: [ga] Stuart Lynn wants restricted TLDs only

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear WXW,
On 09:52 11/01/02, William X Walsh said:

>http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/020110/n10212356_2.html
>The president of the group that oversees the Internet's naming system
>said Thursday that he favored creating new members-only suffixes, such
>as .edu and .museum, over unrestricted domains like .com and .info.

I note that this is conform to RFC 920 which provides that any consortium 
of registrants having a prospective number of 500 Members is entitled to 
its own TLD provided it may operate 2 TLD name servers. This RFC is with 
the RFC 1591 and the ccTLD Best Practices and the ICANN document ICP-1 the 
basis for the RT/BP (Root and TLD Best Practice that several Root 
Administrators comply with, among others to prevent TLD collisions - one of 
your legitimate concerns - and TLD squatting). You will finf it under 
http://boroon.net .

The only main difference between the RT/BP and the other documents is that 
the RT/BP acknowledge the lack of properly managed Internet global NIC ( 
the IANA ) and respects TLD Manager public declarations. This conforms with 
the practice for new network systems roots as we initiated and served them 
from 1977 to 1986 starting with uk, ger, rs, fra, ita, com, net, eisa, .... 
arpa, etc. until we had converted in 1986 the public international services 
to the X121 ITU standard adressing plan, switching the responsiblity of the 
emerging Internet from being interconnected to be the interconnecting 
system as far as naming and non ISO technologies where concerned.

I note that the current ccTLDs position, proposing the ICANN a contract 
where the ICANN serves the ccTLDs, strictly conforms with that practice 
where the International interconnects were peer to peer and the machine 
management of the national standalone gateways (POP,Tymcom,  X.25) or 
independent X.75 services (Sweden, Lebanon) were agreement for separate 
services to the local operator.

This was before Joe Sims misuntderstood the nets yet understood Jones Days 
interests.
Jefsey


>M. Stuart Lynn, president of the Internet Corporation for Assigned
>Names and Numbers, told Reuters that restricted ``top level'' domains
>open only to members of a select group such as schools or museums
>would likely pose fewer problems than unrestricted top-level domains
>open to the general public.
>
>``A lot of the problems surrounding the new TLDs (top-level domains)
>re less in a sponsored environment,'' he said.
>
>
>
>
>Has to be the lamest reason I've ever heard.
>
>Sounds more like trying to find an excuse to do what the Corporate/IP
>interests would like, which is to see NO new unrestricted TLDs.  They
>fought hard during Workgroup C to prevent open TLDs from being
>introduced, arguing for no expansion of the namespace.
>
>I think the quote in my sig reflects quite appropriately on this
>situation.
>
>--
>Best regards,
>William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>
>--
>
>"There is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of
>the law. No artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer
>interprets the truth."
>-- Jean Giradoux
>
>--
>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