On Thu, 10 May 2001, Matt Prigge wrote:
> Far be it from me to defend ICANN, however, the government issued the
> responsibility for delegating TLDs to one entity for a reason (granted they
> chose the wrong entity, but thats beside my point). I dont think theres a
> person on this list who thinks that ICANN is perfect, but just attempting to
> de-facto replace them at the cost of internet integrity isnt much better.
I don't believe we are risking the integrity of the Internet. Rather I
believe that we are offering a completely opt-in approach to adding name
space that people actually want. Heck, even Vint Cerf, Chair of the ICANN
board stated that what we are doing "won't break the Internet."
There are definitely differing views as to what "Internet integrity"
entails, and I appreciate the opportunity to agree to disagree with those
that feel that a label needs to be globally resolvable in order to
preserve "Internet integrity."
> quote my mother: "Two wrongs do not make a right.". IMHO, if anyone is
> guilty of destabilizing the internet it would be new.net, not ICANN.
There is an important distinction to be made regarding the destablization:
We are not introducing names that are in conflict with the names that ICANN
has chosen. If we were to do so, *that* would be destabilizing as a query
could result in an answer pointing to differing locations. I do not agree
however that releasing names that are unused within the ICANN regime creates a
destabilization.
> The attitude you seem to have is one I have seen before. "Who cares
> about the standard?
What standard would you be referring to?(there are lots to choose from.)
There is one "standard" that I am aware of that we are in conflict
with which is RFC 2826. This obstensibly technical standard states in part
that the name space must be administered by a single naming authority. Now
I don't know about you, and perhaps you'll disagree, but defining an
administrative structure doesn't seem to fall within the realm of the
technical. It's a political statement, not a technical standard. Given
that the IAB/IETF is part of the ICANN structure, it is small wonder that
there exists such a document.
> We'll make up our own standard and then use business agreements and the
> resulting user base to force it to become the accepted standard."
We aren't forcing anyone to do anything they don't want to do. If people
want to add support for our names, they will. If we can't convince them
to do so they won't. If we do a good job, then we will succeed. If we do a
poor job, then we'll go away.
The beauty of this is the degree of self-determination we enjoy, and the fact
that we can offer consumers what they want *now* rather than later(or
never.)
> I guess what Im trying to say is that I dislike new.net's tactics more
> than I dislike ICANN.
Are you certain you know enough about either to make that determination?
The reason I ask is that I've been involved in this space for several
years, and the only reason New.net exists at all is because of ICANN, both
the way in which it was formed, as well as how it has behaved.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell
Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
