Re: [ga-roots] ICANN Policy -- revised version
Darryl (AKA Dessa) and all,
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf
> |> Of L Gallegos
> |> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 4:15 AM
> |> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> |> Subject: RE: [ga-roots] ICANN Policy -- revised version
> |> On 21 Jun 2001, at 22:19, Dassa wrote:
> |> >
> |> > |> On 2001-06-17 03:35:12 -0400, L Gallegos wrote:
> |> > |>
> |> > |> >Dassa, do you have any idea how many roots and TLDs there are |>
> |> > >right now? Do you know how many online registration systems are |>
> |> > >in place and how many of the TLDs are represented in them? There |>
> |> > >will be a rush? The rush is on - big time.
> |> >
> |> > Actually I do, and I am also aware that a large number of TLD's in
> |> > other name spaces to the legacy root have no to very few 2LD's under
> |> > them. However, my reference to a rush was related to the TLD's
> |> > themselves. It is not difficult to set up a root server and to
> |> > establish a TLD. No more difficult than setting up a few name
> |> > servers. If there was the possibility of having a TLD recognised by
> |> > ICANN with little effort, I'm sure a large number of people would jump
> |> > at the chance. The biggest difficulty in establishing a TLD in any
> |> > name space is to get the clients.
> |> So small is illegitimate? I guess some of the ccTLDs should be
> |> kicked off the net then? Certainly they should not be in the USG
> |> root if they have only a few SLDs, right? I guess it's just fine to
> |> duplicate the smaller ones since only a few SLDs would collide. It
> |> would be only a small problem, so why even bother to with it? <snip>
> No, small or big has nor bearing except in the potential for damage.
I agree to this extent. The Damage that the ICANN BoD and staff have
proposed with duplicate TLD's .BIZ and .INFO whose version is not even
operational yet, shows clearly the Damage that a basically nonexistent
"ICANN TLD" can cause...
> in a practical sense, it makes a big difference. I raise the point that
> size doesn't matter, you concur. Then there is the differences between
> being available directly from the Internet or those TLD's that are behind
> private networks.
The internet is a network or networks, most of them private or privately
controlled. That is the very basic structure of the network infrastructure
of the Internet, and always has been. Hence it is difficult to the point
of being impossible to address this argument in any reasonable fashion.
> That is also a consideration. Should we only consider
> TLD's that are visible on the Internet or should we also consider TLD's
> that have abided by the guidelines and are only visible on the private
Any TLD is visible to any stakeholder should he or she decide to
make themselves available to have any TLD's Domain Names
visible to them. This has already been proven and is in operation
by a rapidly growing number of stakeholders daily... Hence again,
it seems that this part of this argument is no logical or even a
reasonable premise. Therefore making this argument invalid.
> It is all a matter of drawing lines. Currently the line is
> drawn at TLD's that are accepted into the legacy root name space. You wish
> to expand that to include your own TLD's. The arguments you put forward
> apply to much more than the TLD's you support. If we accept your
> arguments, we must accept the arguments of the other claims that will
Claims, no, new TLD's that are not ICANN BoD and staff determined,
> Once the cat is out of the bag you will have a hard time putting it back.
The cat has been out of the bag as you put it, for over 5 years. The
difference between 5 years ago and now is the new TLD's that are not
ICANN BoD and Staff determined are growing at a much more rapid
rate as re the number of Domain Name registrations within those
TLD name spaces....
> What is the solution?
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch
> PS...I can have thousands of TLD's on the Internet within hours and have
> them more populated than your .biz within a month. That is not a boast.
> But a fact of life. I have access to a market that this a 99% guarantee. I
> also have the team and infrastructure to put it together. That does not it
> make it right however.
Right is determined by the demand of the marketplace....
> This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
> Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html