RE: (Fwd) Re: [ga-roots] alternate roots considered harmful

["Josh Elliott" <josh@basicfusion.com>]

IANA received thousands of request for new TLDs from 1994-1998, and there
were no new TLDs added except for the sanctioned ccTLDs.

There was NEVER a point where IANA(Jon) received a request and simply
decided to add it to the root - not even with .WEB.

Josh

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga-roots@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga-roots@dnso.org]On Behalf
Of NameCritic
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 2:35 AM
To: William X. Walsh
Cc: ga-roots@dnso.org
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: [ga-roots] alternate roots considered harmful



Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>
To: "L Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>
Cc: <ga-roots@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: [ga-roots] alternate roots considered harmful


> Hello L,
>
> Thursday, May 24, 2001, 6:20:01 PM, L Gallegos wrote:
> > Again, it is true that the market share and population of most the TLDs
> > in
> > the alternate roots is small.  That is why we would not see too much of
a
> > problem with those.  However, with the duplication in the USG root, of
an
> > active TLD, it will come up quickly.  That is precisely why ICANN should
> > not have accepted applications for or selected TLDs that already exist.
>
> the problem with that Leah, is that the alt.root/alt.tld community has
> not come up with a credible standard for defining when a TLD is "in
> use" or "exists."
>
> In their current framework, the simple assertion of a claim, and
> getting Sexton or one of the others to add a couple lines in a dns
> config, has been the standard.
>
> That is no standard at all, and as a result, those claims will not,
> and in fact should not, be taken seriously or given any credibility
> whatsoever.

Then that makes a lot of things invalid becaus to get a TLD or domain name
in the beginning all you had to do was ask Jon Postel. Does this mean that
.com, .net, .org, .mil , .edu, and , .gov are invalid since that was how
they were created?


>
> And no, Simon, filing a registration document with IANA years ago does
> not satisfy a reasonable standard either.

Why not? They were the authority then. The same as ICANN is supposed to be
now. To invalidate those agreements is to make all ICANN agreements only
temporary and based on their existance as well. Then everytime it is
assigned to another entity we would all have to start over. How do you think
the current TLDs were approved and by whom? Do you think only things
approved by ICANN should exist? Then everything would have to start over. No
dot com either.

>
> > No matter how much you insist that it is someone else's fault, the facts
> > are the facts.
>
> No, not really.  Blame the alt.root/alt.tld community for not coming
> up with a set of standards, including both technical and business,
> that establish a better system for claims to be recognized as being
> reasonable and recognizable.

Because you don't agree with their standards does not mean they have created
standards that should not be recognized. Many of us don't agree with ICANN's
standards or lack of them in certain areas but you seem to think it's ok for
that to be the case. You think the other root operators should live up to
whatever ICANN says is a standard. This is not the case. They do not have to
do that.

A new joke for everyone: How many ICANN Board Members does it take to change
a lightbulb?

None. They just declare darkness the standard.

The joke really is the fact that many including William tell us, LOL,
William . . . Tell, get it, anyway, they tell everyone to accept whatever
ICANN does as the standard. Who gave ICANN the right to do that? The DoC?
Who gave them the right? The Internet is INTERNATIONAL. It belongs to the
world. What part of that don't you get there William?

ICANN is a California Nonprofit Organization. They are not an International
body of any kind. They do not have the authority to tell the world what they
have to do. They do not have the power you and others would like to believe
they have. The arrogance that some California Nonprofit is going to set the
rules the world will follow is like the little engine that could.

ICANN will soon find challenges to it's so called policies that it will
never overcome. They will not be the entity that runs the entire Internet no
matter how much some current constituencies have designed it to do. This was
an attempt by corporations and lawyers to take over the internet. I just
want to know, is Touton Pinky or the Brain?

Chris McElroy AKA NameCritic


>
> They have not done so, they do not look likely to do so anytime soon.
>
> The ONLY reasonable response then is for there to be no recognition of
> claims unless the TLD itself has shown itself to be a credible force
> to be dealt with, which apparently at least one ICANN Board member
> thought IOD had done with .web.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh
> mailto:william@userfriendly.com
> Owner, Userfriendly.com
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html