[ga] FW: Stability of the Internet?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roeland Meyer
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 10:16 AM
> To: 'email@example.com'; Roeland Meyer
> Cc: Roeland Meyer; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
> Subject: RE: Stability of the Internet?
> > From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > [mailto:email@example.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 10:16 AM
> > > > There is work being done in the IETF to create
> such a private
> > > > use TLD.
> > >
> > > Where? Also, this may bring on a jurisdiction issue with
> > ICANN/DNSO. It is
> > > the ICANN that is recommending new TLDs to the DOC, not the
> > IETF. In order
> > > tfor that effort to comply with WIP process, it should make
> > attempts to
> > > surface within relevent ICANN activity as well. Otherwise,
> > ICANN doesn't
> > > know about it and can't make appropriate recommendations.
> > I'm very much
> > > involved in that area and they are invisible to every one,
> > in the DNSO. This
> > > effects the open/transparent process and if they don't want
> > to catch a LOT
> > > of political flak (consider this fair-warning), they need
> > to widen the
> > > visibility of their effort. This effects ICANN policy
> > directly and IETF
> > > isn't a policy org. They are a PSO, not a DNSO.
> > The IETF work predates much of ICANN & DNSo work.
> Agreed, much of it does. I am proposing to get IETF out of
> the policy business and in into the PSO business it is now
> chartered for.
> > Clearly
> > there has been too narrow a focus if the DNSo & ICANN do
> > not believe that others have considered the impact of
> > entry points in the DNS
> That's not the issue presented. The issues are those of
> involvement and communication. IETF is closed and tight-knit.
> Yet, they do not and cannot recommend TLDs to the DOC.
> Evenso, they come up with stuff that the folks that ARE
> supposed to recommend these these things, aren't made aware
> of. Countervailing recommendations are made, from those that
> ARE supposed to make them, and we then have a cat-fight.
> > and that they have exclusive understanding of the
> > ramifications of controlling this space.
> That's a fairly deep mud-hole. Let's not go there ;)
> > See RFC 2606
> Thanks for the RFC. It will be taken into consideration.
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html