[ga] Re: sTLDs..."sponsored TLDs"...or Secure TLDs or Stable TLDs ???

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jim and all,

Jim Fleming wrote:

> http://www.icann.org/committees/security/
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Crocker" <steve@stevecrocker.com>
> Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 1:01 PM
> Subject: RE: ICANN Staff Changes ?
>
> > That's correct.  I had no input nor involvement in "A Plan for Action
> > Regarding New gTLDs," nor did I partake in discussions of this when I
> > was at the Shanghai meeting.
> >
>
> Would it not be more appropriate to call those sTLDs ?...with S as in Secure and Stable...
> http://www.icann.org/committees/ntepptf/new-gtld-action-plan-18oct02.htm
> "staff to solicit proposals for up to three more sponsored TLDs..."
> =====
>
> At the risk of bringing up a technical topic...
> Isn't the real reason for sTLDs to be able to justify censoring the IN-ADDR.[TLD] zone ?
> ...by claiming that IN-ADDR does not fit the *sponsored namespace* criteria...
> ...that allows the IN-ADDR zone to be censored without saying it or claiming it is "reserved"...it just does not fit...
> As an example, there is no IN-ADDR.Museum zone...even though someone may want to start such a museum...
>
> http://www.IN-ADDR.info
> http://www.IN-ADDR.de
> http://www.IN-ADDR.com
> http://www.IN-ADDR.net
> http://www.IN-ADDR.org
> http://www.IN-ADDR.biz
> http://www.IN-ADDR.online
>
> By the way, IN-ADDR.US is reserved by the Registry, but is not in the DNS. It is not mentioned in the ICANN contract
> because the .US TLD was not handled by ICANN, it was wisely handled directly by the NTIA (U.S. Department of Commerce).
> .EDU was also not handled by ICANN. The insiders seem to go directly to the U.S. Government for their TLDs.
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
> It is interesting to note that the I* society claims that IN-ADDR.[TLD] other than IN-ADDR.ARPA has no place in their
> narrow minds, yet all of the major TLDs have such a zone, and the zone is reserved actively or passively by other TLD Managers.
> Why would a name that people claim has no special meaning be actively censored from the DNS ?

  These are very good questions and you also make a very important set of
observations here Jim.  As many of us have learned or found out repugnantly,
is that the current ICANN BoD and staff have not met the requirements
of the MoU and White paper and therefore have negatively impacted
the registrants, current and most especially future to thwart the open
and free market place principals.  Hence it is obvious that Stuart
Lynn's comments and statements on new TLD's as well as those
determined in MDR2000, that they will be "Dolled" out in accordance
with what the ICANN BOD and staff deem reasonable, regardless
of whether that decision meets either technical potential and/or
falls within technical abilities of the DNS or any extension thereof.
Hence a political conundrum has the possibility of being used as
a excuse much alone the lines that you suggest Jim...  Thank you for
point this up...

>
>
> Jim Fleming
> 128-bit DNS is closer than you think...
> COM...DE...NET...ORG...INFO...BIZ...US...ONLINE
> http://ipv8.dyndns.tv
> http://ipv8.dyns.cx
> http://ipv8.no-ip.com
> http://ipv8.no-ip.biz
> http://ipv8.no-ip.info
> http://ipv8.myip.us
> http://ipv8.dyn.ee
> http://ipv8.community.net.au

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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