Re: [wg-c] compromise proposal

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

Hi Tony,

> Hi John Charles,
> 
>  >Completely irrelevant. That TLD increase was exclusively ccTLD increase
>  >taking as a basis the ISO-3166 two-letter country-code list. As this list is
>  >finite (countries/territories are not sprouting up all the time all around
> 
> The Internet DNS is a distributed database.  Operationally
> and technically, the distinction among TLDs is irrelevant -
> which is what ICANN is supposed to confine itself to, and
> what I expect a court will consider on review.

Get real. Everybody else but you seems to agree that the overwhelming
attitude is to treat ccTLDs and gTLDs as separate beasts. I agree 100% that
on the technical side and the registry operational side there is no
difference (a database is a database, and lines in a zone file are lines in
a zone file). But the authority to which a registry will bow to is
completely different. In the case of a ccTLD this authority (SHOULD IT BE
INVOKED) would be the government or governing authority of that particular
territory (try telling China that it has no authority over .cn).
In the case of gTLDs there are lots of questions over who has the authority.
Hence the existance of all this debate.

> It sounds like you wandered into the wrong paradigm.  Do you
> have an OSI related client? :-)

I think that all of these problems are in the top 3 levels of the OSI layer
which is 10 layers, not 7. These last levels are political, philosophical
and religious.

Yours, John Broomfield.