[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [IFWP] Announcement of the new TLD Association (TLDA)
- To: Kent Crispin <kent@SONGBIRD.COM>
- Subject: Re: [IFWP] Announcement of the new TLD Association (TLDA)
- From: Jeff Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:57:51 +0100
- CC: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET, IFWP Discussion List <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, DNSO <firstname.lastname@example.org>, DNS Policy <email@example.com>, ICANN Comments <Comments@icann.org>, ICANN SO comments <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Michael Palage <email@example.com>, William Daley <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Organization: INEG. Inc.
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <19990428120113.A6147@songbird.com> <37276AB6.64F45224@mcg.org.br> <19990428230718.C19525@songbird.com>
- Sender: email@example.com
Kent and all,
Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 01:08:22PM -0700, Ed Gerck wrote:
> > Kent Crispin wrote:
> > > ... there are multiple .web domains in
> > > multiple roots, and none of them are part of the Internet.
> > Then, why do you think they should be discussed as Internet matter?
> I don't, actually. I only mention it because there is no meaningful
> distinction between my .web and IODesign's .web, and Chris insists
> that IODesign's .web is an Internet matter. I would be perfectly
> content to drop the matter of .web and .per and the other private
> dns spaces entirely.
The problem here seems to stem from a lack of understanding or
exceptence on your part Kent. .per and .web with respect to IOD
and Iperdome are not private DNS spaces as they are used by the public
and have a long standing existence that can be demonstrated as such.
It would be very difficult to comprehend for the ICANN or the DNSO
to take any other position or view this as being the actual situation
with IOD's .web and Iperdom's .per gTLD's. Should either the DNSO or
the ICANN take such a position than they would be demonstrating that
as a self regulatory body, they are not willing to act in the public's
interest entirely and would be violating several anti-trust provisions
under US federal mandate, not to mention several existing international
> > > At this point, NSI is the only gTLD registry.
> > This is perhaps the motivation for the TLD constituency and TLDA itself.
> While I certainly have no love of NSI, as I understand the current
> rules they will get one seat on the names council. Given their
> position as the only gTLD registry, that is perhaps reasonable, but
> it certainly is an anomaly, one that can only be fixed by there
> being more gTLD registries. So, it seems likely that there will be
> more gTLD registries. Somehow I don't think that the problems with
> NSI bode well for the creation of high profit monopoly registries in
> the NSI model...as is well known, my preferred model is where
> registry operators (which may be for-profit entities) bid to operate
> non-profit registries on behalf of ICANN. There should be several
> such registries, and several such registry operators, and the
> operations should be thrown open to competitive bid every few years.
It may indeed be the warranted and desirable to have a biding process
for additional registries for additional gTLD's. However for those that are
already in existence, it would be difficult to deny them equal opportunity
under existing electronic trade mandates as well as anti-trust provisions,
as being in extant presently.
> Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
> firstname.lastname@example.org lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208