[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-c] voting on TLDs
I would say that a proper vetting process is a better answer than simply
adding them slowly. Reduced rate of new TLD additions is no assurance of
quality, only a proper vetting process can give you that. For that to
happen, one must have requirements and standards. IMHO, that is where we
should be spending most of our thoughts. Not absurdities ... like voting on
TLD labels <phah>! Sheppard's nine points brief is interesting and I an
analysing it now (detailed commentary to follow, shortly after 15Mar, it's
corporate tax season in the "States" and MHSC is not that big <sigh>).
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2000 4:15 PM
To: Karl Auerbach
Subject: Re: [wg-c] voting on TLDs
At 03:27 PM 3/5/2000 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>I have yet to see any technical or policy basis to have any belief
>whatsoever that additional TLDs, even thousands of them, will have any
>impact on the "stability of the Internet".
You might not like the analyses or concerns that have been raised, but they
have been raised repeatedly. You have seen them and you have responded to
Administrative instability is just as bad -- actually much worse -- as
crashing machines. We have no evidence that a flood of new, inexperienced
registry administrators will provide stable service. Quite the opposite.
That does not mean refraining from adding TLD (registries). It means
adding them judiciously.
Dave Crocker <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Brandenburg Consulting <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA