Re: [wg-c] new TLDs

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

Dave issues a challenge and then changes the rules to suit his
anticipated result.

Why am I not surprised?

Oh, and http://nic.web is the best URL to use.

Now, how about the proposed .EU? That fits under Dave's
reconstructed rules. Or, since it's not active yet (as Dave
will certainly constrain his rules as such), let's consider
.INT, which was an idea, then a phone call, and then a
reality.

Next?

Christopher

----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
To: <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Cc: 'Milton Mueller' <mueller@syr.edu>; 'wgc' <wg-c@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 1999 4:54 PM
Subject: RE: [wg-c] new TLDs


>
> "Allow" is exactly the term, since IANA/ICANN have authority for defining
> that set of TLDs.
>
> .web is not in the IANA/ICANN root registry.  In other words it is not a
> TLD for the IANA/ICANN domain name service.
>
> Any other TLDs you wish to offer, trying to establish precedent for
> registry-defined TLDs?
>
> d/
>
> At 04:39 PM 12/23/1999 , Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> > > In this case, it is significant that you do not address the potential
legal
> > > impact of letting a registry define TLDs.
> > > As to precedent, please tell us what registry has previously been
allowed
> > > to define a new TLD (and then administer it.)
> >
> >.web at <http://webtld.com> or, for those that have a complete root-zone,
> ><http://webtld.web>
> >I have trouble with the use of your word "allow". It seems misplaced.
>
>
> =-=-=-=-=
> Dave Crocker  <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
> Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
> Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
> 675 Spruce Drive,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
>