Roeland and all, In essence, we agree with your conclusions here Roeland. There are some problems however. One of those is the PROCESS in which charter determinations are decided and another is whom will be making those decisions. A third will be how these new TLD charters are enforced and at what level. For instance, once a charter for a particular is determined and agreed upon (Depending on how that agreement is reached), does the Registrar or the registry have the power and responsibility of enforcement? Just food for thought...... The other HUGE problem is that the current "DNSO" at www.dnso.org is seemingly starting to practice "Behind Closed Doors" decision making as a part of the drafting committee activities. This leads us to a potential LOCK-OUT situation in the PROCESS for any members. Claims of "Consensus" that is not verified have already surficed. This is a bad thing and cis in stark violation of the White Paper. Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: > At 07:31 AM 12/10/98 , Alex Kamantauskas wrote: > >On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, Richard J. Sexton wrote: > > > >> Yousimply can't define entire tlds to be commercial or not. I > >> dount from an operaitons/logistics perspective you can even > >> get subdomains of a tld to list as com/non-com. > >> > >> In other words,making the entire global DNS to be extensions > >> of .COM and .ORG just isn't going to work' for one thing > >> you forgot about .NET :-) > >> > > > >Is that a commercial .NET or a non-commercial .NET? ;-) > > To drive the point home further, MHSC.COM's network is supported by > MHSC.NET, the vISP. MHSC.COM is business operations and MHSC.NET is network > operations. MHSC.NET is also the home of our NOC and our NIC. For MHSC, the > NET is a cost center. For others, their NET is a profit center. Yet, all of > them match the charter for NET. > > I submit that if COM/NET/ORG had been run by separate organizations, those > charters would not have eroded so severely, IMHO. Although, with the freeze > on gTLDs, some erosion would have had to happen, regardless. > > IMHO, the original idea of actually chartering a particular TLD is a good > one. They just ran into problems when IANA wanted to restrict the charters > to prefered types. The concept of chartered TLDs covers Martin's cases and > the ccTLDs as well, Now all TLDs can be treated the same, or according to > their charter. The question arises as to who issues the TLD charters and > how they are enforced. But, that's exactly the kind of thing that we are > discussing in the DNSOs. > > ___________________________________________________ > Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) > e-mail: rmeyer@mhsc.com > Internet phone: hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com > Personal web pages: staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer > Company web-site: www.mhsc.com > ___________________________________________________ > Who is John Galt? > "Atlas Shrugged" - Ayn Rand > > __________________________________________________ > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature