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

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Ahem ... Mark,

Have you really read
<http://www.dnso.net/library/dnso-tld.mhsc-position.shtml>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Sportack, Mark A, CSCIO
> Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 1:01 PM
> To: wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [wg-c] New gTLDs and ISPs (was: URGENT . . . )
>
>
> 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
>