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

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Thomas,
you are certainly right in term of reasonable and sensible appreciation of 
the situation. As was the Spanish establishment considering that 
Christorforo Colombani from Genoa. No one sensible would have considered 
any Spanish King representative action without several Tercios, the Cortez, 
the Grands etc... So to have three barks going to nowhere on an open root, 
sorry, rout... to claim territories !!! ....

The problem is that the New.net's and NameSlinger's TLDs are legally valid. 
First come, first serve.... They will have to be purchased back from them. 
They are no cybersquatters: just an economic model with as much merit as 
bug.biz. NameSlinger is carefull about not colliding. Not like Vint. All 
these TLDs have more DNs than the smallest ccTLDs (several have none).

All this only comes as a reaction to four known moves:

- $50.000 enforced by Mike Roberts while Yokohama resolutions were flexible
- bug.biz collision by VintCerf
- slowliness to contract due to contract compelxity by Louis Touton
- Stuart's document showing iCANN's inability to handle this situation

Just tell me how you can address that situation now. I see only one 
solution: to reach a consensus among root operators (iCANN, WWAccTLD and 
inclusive roots if they want) to define TLD's best practices  - according 
to RFCs, not from Louis Touton's contracts - and to agree that any operator 
accepting and trying to abide by these rules is legitimate. And to make 
that agreement attractive enough for the new roots to accept them. Should 
have we discussed it three months agor as I proposed we would not be in 
that situation.

Otherwise there will be hundreths of legitimate collision lovers. I do not 
like them more than you  but they are legitimate. Nobody wants to consider 
the viruscom problem initiated by Vint's bug.biz. It created a fashion. You 
can be unhappy with it, this is not the issue: tell me how to stop it.

Otherwise Tuckows or others will join the trend.

Jefsey










On 19:19 18/06/01, Thomas Roessler said:
>On 2001-06-18 12:04:50 -0400, L Gallegos wrote:
>
>>The post referred to creation of roots and TLDs, not SLD 
>>registrations.  There are some three thousand TLDs and several roots that 
>>are new and more coming all the time.  I am not saying whether this is a 
>>good or bad thing, Dass, only that it is occurring.
>
>>It also has nothing to do with whether any of the TLDs will be popular, 
>>open, restricted (chartered) or what business models will be 
>>utilized.  You took the post and changed the focus of the response to 
>>refer to SLDs.
>
>That was me, not Dassa.
>
>But anyway, I think that my question concerning the number of 
>registrations in your alternative TLD is one which should be answered in 
>order to be able to judge your remark on a TLD "rush" - because, of 
>course, we could start to count all those misconfigured pseudo-intranets 
>which are confusing SLDs and TLDs, and are certainly contributing to the 
>TLD zoo.  However, this zoo's inhabitants are about as uninteresting for 
>any ICANNesque deliberations as it can get.
>
>Also, a "rush" of alt.roots (and in TLDs being offered by these alt.roots) 
>which doesn't coincide with a corresponding rush of SLD registrations 
>under these TLDs very much looks like a rush of childish fools trying to 
>play Internic - which is, frankly, something ICANN should indeed ignore, 
>and on which even the development of a III 3 b policy would be far too 
>much effort and honor.
>
>(I suppose that Kent and friends will subsume (almost?) all alt.roots in 
>this category.)
>
>--
>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