Re: RFC 1591 and ccTLD's (was Draft new draft)

[Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com>]

This is now all the more pressing as we see what ICANN has in mind for
Registration, Certification, and Regulation of the entire Registrar
and Registry Industry, World Wide!

Yes, I know, ICANN has not exactly made it known that this is really
what they have in mind, but they also have not disavowed it either.

So, given all that I know about what is going on here, I strongly
suspect that the ICANN plan is to expand the controls being applied to
NSI registrars to all registries and registrars, such that no one can
get a DNS name at the TLD, or SLD, (or 3LD if that is the leel where
registrations are sold).  

So, I see ICANN using "The need to control the NSI Monopoly" to impose
monopoly regulation to the entire DNS!

Be sure to read those certification requirements very carefully.

Cheers...\Stef

>From your message Thu, 11 Feb 1999 10:57:16 -0500:}

}I have argued in the past that the creation of new gTLDs is of critical
}importance precisely because some ccTLDs are so limited.  There are many in
}which you cannot register a name if you are a natural person (instead of a
}business), and some have restrictions where you can't get a name unless you
}are a customer of the phone company.  Therefore, *visibility* on the net,
}for many people, depends on open and accessible gTLDs.
}
}Antony
}
}P.S. Yes, RFC 1591 dates from 1994, and is out of date.  Yes, changes could
}be made.  No, it does not need to be jettisoned in favor of a vague and
}worrisome and wholly new principle of sovereignty.  The RFC should be used
}as a starting point from which to move forward in the DNSO, and until such
}time as it is modified it should continue to be recognized.
}
}
}[Einar wrote]
}> >So, before the roof caves in, we all need to be very careful to
}> >preserve our rights to use non-ccTLD DNS names, adn we have to be
}> >careful to avoid governments' capture of control of ICANN or the DNSO.
}> >
}> >It is already disurbing to see the current trends in the situation.
}> >
}[Joop wrote]
}> Yes. It is worrying.  I am afraid that Anthony, William and others are
}> sticking their head in the sand on this point.  Maybe this comes
}> from being
}> based in the U.S., where the trend is less visible. Kent is more realistic
}> in this respect.
}> New, free, self-governed gTLD's are of critical importance. Self-governed
}> ccTLD's need to be 100% above suspicion in order to escape from being
}> regulated.
}> RFC 1591 dates from 1994.   Things are changing fast.
}
}