Hello up,
Wednesday, March 07, 2001, 12:19:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, William X. Walsh wrote:
>> Hello Alex,
>>
>> Wednesday, March 07, 2001, 9:47:54 AM, Alex Kells wrote:
>>
>> > Hmm, 16million is only about twice the population of London... so it's not a
>> > huge amount of people really <shrug>
>>
>> In the very very brief time since they opened, to have already
>> achieved that is a huge accomplishment, not to mention that it is also
>> the first alt.root type thing to ever exceed 1% visibility, and they
>> did it in a big way, already at ~4-5% based on the approx. 300 million
>> internet users the last report I saw estimated.
> So what? So anybody who throws enough money at it should be able to start
> their own new TLDs?
Essentially, yes. The Internet was always built around co-operation
(after all, the Internet is really just a Network of private
Networks) and if the network operators recognize this (and so far
enough have to give new.net an exposure of near or a little over 5% of
the entire internet population) then they are as real and legitimate
as ICANN.
> Give me a break. This organization should, and
> hopefully will, die, and leave alot of very shortsited, hype-happy
> investors holding the very greasy bag.
Probably, but I only say that because I don't hold much faith in the
management of Idealabs, not because the concept is flawed.
>> As someone on NANOG said, if they get Hotmail or Yahoo to support
>> them....then everyone else will pretty much have to follow.
> Not really...get ICANN to support it, and only *then* will anyone pretty
> much have to follow. Until then, nobody in their right mind is going to
> support it; there's simply no motivation.
Why do you say that ICANN is the end all decision maker of what is
legitimate on the Internet?
Who gives them that authority?
You do, when you decide how to configure your DNS Server. You can
just as easily take that back.
ICANN does not rule by law, they rule by agreement. And they
themselves say that there is merit to the idea of competitive roots
(See their testimony before Congress).
The Internet does not need ICANN. ICANN needs us a lot more than we
need them. If someone else is providing what the community wants
(i.e. real expansion of the namespace) and they get the network
support for their effort, then they will succeed.
Right now Excite@Home users, Netzero users, and Earthlink users will
all be able to see these domains. I'm also hearing that some other
smaller deals have been made with smaller ISPs, but which combined add
even more significant numbers to those already discussed.
I would be careful about being so dismissive about it. ICANN could
have avoided this by engaging in a REAL open expansion of the
namespace. There is no technical reason for them not to have done
that (and they do claim that their SOLE role is technical
coordination, not governance, but we all know that is hogwash). Had
they done that, the market for something like New.Net would not be
quite so compelling.
--
Best regards,
William mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
