Re: [ifwp] Re: Proposal for a new ORSC/DNSO project

["William X. Walsh" <william@tjns.tj>]

On 03-Dec-98 Christopher Ambler wrote:
>>Your questions are not relevent.  These is no need to select a date for
> what
>>you are suggest.  Operational registries are already in the root.  We are
>>talking about invalid and non-operational claims to TLDs with no basis for
>>ever believing they would receive operational sanction.
> 
> Really? You never answered my question - what makes you think that
> they had no basis to believe that they would receive operational
> sanction?
> 
> As I asked before, are you saying that CORE had no reason to believe
> that they would be active? That IANA never gave them any such impression?
> Do you really think that some of these companies spent millions of
> dollars on infrastructure on a gamble? Do you think that they have
> no evidence of intent to be made active by IANA or anyone else?
> 
> Nope. Think again.
> 
> But do answer.

Quite frankly, Chris, while I think IOD would do a great job managing .web, I
do not think there is any real basis.  

>From reading the archives, and links you have provided to the material, my
conclusions were that IOD was strongly pushing IANA to make such a
determination, but that IANA never gave any indication that any official
decision was pending.

Indeed they did not have the power to make such a decision in any regard, as
evidenced by the NSFs actions.  NSF never delegated to IANA the ability to
create new gTLDs, only to manage the ccTLD delegations.  NSF retained that
responsibility, as further evidenced by the NSI contract, which was with the
USG, NOT IANA, and by NSFs blocking of IANA's attempt to move the gTLD-MoU plan
into completion. 

I was said IOD might have been the only exception to my analysis on this, but
after reading up on it, I do not feel that way any longer.

This does not mean I think IOD should not have a strong case for managing .web,
but I do not think their application for operating the .web registry should be
exclusive.  Other potential registries should be able to propose for that TLD,
as well as the others, according to whatever procedure and application process
is decided appropriate.

I know my position is an unpopular one here.  These lists are well populated by
people and organizations who have tried to lay claim to unrecognized TLD space.
 But fortunately, I am not on this list to be loved by one and all.  You also
know that this is something I feel strongly about, as I also feel strongly
about the opening up of new gTLDs to lead to a truely open competitive market
in the domain name industry.

But I don't see this as penalizing the renegade registries at all.  I say let
them stand on their own merits alongside the others who may aspire to be a
registry for those TLDs.  If the existing renegade registry can present a
strong case with existing registration procedures and infrastucture, than I
would say they have a likely chance to be considered better candidates.  But to
automatically assume that this is the case, simple because they laid claim to
it before anyone had any basis to do so, that is just plain unfair to those who
did not want to be label a renegade working outside the system, and believed
and worked within the integrity of these processes, awaiting for actual
procedures and policies to be developed.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
William X. Walsh (WXW7/WW1506)| TJ Network Services - The .TJ NIC
Network Operations            | http://tjns.tj / http://nic.tj
william@tjns.tj/william@nic.tj| Domain Names, DNS, Email,
+1-(209)-493-6144             | DynamicDNS & Web Hosting Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 03-Dec-98 / Time: 15:44:32