Re: [wg-c] Taxonimies and Chartered TLDs

["Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>]

> Highly generic terms used as TLDs should be open
> to use by all, shared where possible on a voluntary
> basis (not every registry would have to carry all
> TLDs, but all TLDs would be included in the root,
> and must have at least two geographically separate
> servers, and conform to the RFCs for proper technical
> implementation of DNS to insure stability.  It would
> be possible for a number of diverse providers to
> operate and manage blocks of TLD zones, and provide
> services in any number of zones that they choose to
> operate.
> 
> Specialized strings that are not highly generic
> may be operated exclusively and branding is possible
> (i.e. .NOT2B  .4U .XS4ALL ) and should be accepted
> into the global root on a non-discriminatory basis
> upon proof of operational capability (i.e. ICANN
> certification) of the interested registry(ies).

And how do you define the difference between the two?

Since we have this wonderful trademark system here in
the U.S., IOD, for one, is using it. 

If you don't agree, then please justify your model in
the case of .IBM or .ATT or .MCI.

> Stability depends on persistent infrastructure
> and shared responsibility for TLD operations.
> Any TLD should have multiple operators to insure
> that there is no interruption if any one operator
> has a technical or business failure.

You go right ahead. IOD chooses not to. Don't
mandate your philosophy on others.

Christopher