Re: [wg-c] .eu and the notion of regional TLDs

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 12:09:17PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
[...]
> 
> It should be obvious that IANA lost the ability to define procedurs for the
> addition of new TLDs between 94 and 97. Draft Postel (1996), which proposed
> adding 150 new TLDs to the root, was endorsed by both Postel and the
> Internet Society Board, and yet, it did not happen.

That is not correct.  "Draft Postel" was a *draft*, and Postel and ISOC 
both knew very well what that meant.  ISOC's "endorsement" said "this 
is a nice first thought, let's go work on it."

> The gTLD-MoU was also
> endorsed by Postel, ISOC, and even ITU and INTA, yet its proposed new TLDs
> were not added. Clearly, there was a need for a new institution and new
> processes.

The prime reason that the MoU was not implemented was the intervention
of Magaziner.  In my opinion the definitive intervention of Magaziner
was at a meeting at the IETF in Washington DC where the insertion of the
7 new TLDs was proposed as a testbed, and Magaziner said "no".  Up to 
that time the MoU was the game in town.

> There are probably 50 other regional and international entities that could
> apply on similar terms. This process could succeed in politicizing and
> corrupting the ISO list as well.

Personally I would be delighted to see 50 new ccTLDs.  Shoot -- we could
have 400 more -- there are only 676 possible 2 letter combinations.  It
doesn't matter *at all* if the ISO list is politicized -- that is
utterly irrelevant from the point of view of the DNS.  It is amazing to
me that you have objections.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain