RE: [wg-c] New gTLDs and ISPs (was: URGENT . . . )

["Sportack, Mark A, CSCIO" <msportack@att.com>]

Tony, 
 
I take the work that this group is tasked to perform very seriously. I also
regard the continued operational stabilility of the Internet as imperative;
a priority that must be higher than any of the other motives I've seen
displayed in this group. "Rules" (to use your terminology, although I would
be delighted to see them embraced as high-priority goals) such as these are
exactly what enabled the Internet to scale to its current global
proportions. 

Please clarify something for me. Are you suggesting that WG-C's mission is
to pursue TLD expansion, without regard for the Internet's continued
operational stability, ubiquity, and usability? 
 
Mark
 
 -----Original Message-----
From: A.M. Rutkowski [mailto:amr@netmagic.com]
Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 3:48 PM
To: Sportack, Mark A, CSCIO; wg-c@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [wg-c] New gTLDs and ISPs (was: URGENT . . . )



Hi Mark,



expansion on the Internet. Virtually all comments have been avariciously,
selfishly, or academically motivated, with no regard for the actual effects
that recommendations will have on the Internet, or its broad base of diverse


heavy stuff, dude.  May be time to lighten up.




1) Recommendations made by WG-C must not adversely affect the ubiquity of
the Internet (no logical partitioning should result from any namespace
expansion). 
2) Recommendations of the WG-C must not compromise the usability of the
Internet for any of its constituencies. This includes end-users and ISPs. 


This is like back to X.400 days.  If these "rules" had been
in place, the Internet wouldn't have happened.  Let's see,
there was bitnet, uucp, the old UK reverse naming, fidonet,
x.400 gateways, proprietary mail gateways,...

I recommend we outsource this all to Paul Mokapetris.

-tony