Re: [ga-roots] Re: ICANN Policy -- revised version

["Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@prodigy.net>]

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12215.html

Leaving the "roots" out of it, what about the TLD Clusters ?
ISPs point directly to the "Best-of-Breed". Note, in the lists
below, the ISOC/ICANN group seems to have the most
problem getting anything deployed. Instead, the focus is on
pre-registrations, lotteries, raffles, etc. Does that speed up the
process of adding TLDs ?

Also, keep in mind that each of the TLDs below has a growing
SLD.TLD community. They will collectively not want to see their
TLD disappear, unless they, themselves, disappear. It seems
unlikely, the "Best-of-Breed" TLDs will disappear. Again, looking
at the lists below, has the ISOC/ICANN selection been the
TLDs with the longest track-record and the most stability ?
Clearly, the answer is no, some still do not exist.

When will people focus on getting nameservers working ?


Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp



http://www.name-space.com
http://www.icann.org/tlds/ads1/NameSpace-gtld-appBP.html
(* first 20 TLDs)

.SHOP  <<<<<
.SPACE
.SEX
.ART
.ZONE

.MUSIC
.ONLINE
.CONSULTING
.DESIGN
.TRAVEL   <<<<<

.MEDIA
.NEWS
.DIRECT
.MAIL
.WORLD

.MAG
.AUCTION
.FREE    <<<<<
.CAM
.SERVICE

-----------------------

http://www.New.Net

.SHOP    <<<<<
.MP3
.INC
.KIDS
.SPORT

.FAMILY
.CHAT
.VIDEO
.CLUB
.HOLA

.SOC
.MED
.LAW
.TRAVEL   <<<<<
.GAME

.FREE     <<<<
.LTD
.GMBH
.TECH
.XXX

----------------------

ISOC/ICANN

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg02817.html
http://www.icann.org/tlds/

.FIRM
.STORE
.WEB
.ARTS
.REC

.INFO     <<<<
.NOM
.AERO
.BIZ
.COOP

.INFO     <<<<
.MUSEUM
.NAME
.PRO
_____

_____
_____
_____
_____
_____

---------------------------------------------


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
To: <ga-roots@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: [ga-roots] Re: ICANN Policy -- revised version


> On 2001-06-14 15:42:10 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> >On the contrary, I think the statement should be strengthened, for 
> >exactly the reason that the Tucows representative gave: to give 
> >any deference whatsoever to alternate root providers would simply 
> >encourage avoidance of the ICANN process.  Right now the big 
> >players don't do alternate roots for two reasons: 1) they realize 
> >the technical instabilities it would create; and 2) even more 
> >important, they realize the total chaos that would prevail if 
> >ICANN gave any credence whatsoever to alternate roots.
> 
> These are strong and good arguments why ICANN should establish a 
> policy to ignore alternate roots.  But they are NOT arguments which 
> say that ICANN has already done so in the past.
> 
> >>I can prove easily that there is no policy: ICANN has explicitly 
> >>avoided a conflict in the case of .WEB, and it has created a 
> >>conflict in the case of .BIZ.
> 
> >You have a pretty weak notion of "proof".  If anything, what we 
> >have is clear proof that ICANN has simply been following a policy 
> >of ignoring any precedent set by alternate roots.
> 
> A policy or a custom?  There's certainly a difference between the 
> two concepts.  In particular, a policy would have to come from a 
> pretty well-defined process.  Opposed to that, a custom just means 
> that "we have always done it this way".
> 
> I don't believe that blurring the line between the two concepts is 
> helpful at all - in particular given the formal role consensus 
> xpolicies play in the entire ICANN process.
> 
> >It is undeniable fact that there is a long and continuous history 
> >of rejection of alternate roots, a history that preceeded ICANN by 
> >years. And it is I believe completely obvious that what the Tucows 
> >representative said is true: any deference to any alternate root 
> >would instantly open the floodgates, and worldwide there would be 
> >thousands of new alternate tlds immediately insisting on 
> >recognition.
> 
> There isn't much serious disgareement on this - with two exceptions:
> 
> - ICANN may wish to pay special attention to .WEB.  It may, however, 
>    only pay this special attention when it makes abundantly clear 
>    why it is doing so, and that this won't be repeated with more 
>    recent instances of alterantive TLDs.
> 
> - Not paying attention to the alternate TLDs isn't sufficient to 
>    keep the floodgates closed.  ICANN MUST speed up the TLD addition 
>    process, because otherwise new.net-like business models could 
>    become more and more interesting.
> 
>    Once that is the case, alternate TLDs may create destructive 
>    capacities against any colliders ICANN may add later.  Thus, 
>    ICANN would be forced into paying special attention to these 
>    players, which would in turn further weaken the floodgates.
>    
>    We can only hope that new.net isn't the first such case.
> 
> Cheers,
> -- 
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> --
> 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