On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > which of the myriad of namespaces ? New.net is only one of .... how many? > > New.net is the only one that could be taken serious (with their huge number > of enabled browsers)
I disagree. Mind you new.net is the best thing since sliced bread in my opinion. But in the end they will serve a function but not profit from it. Apart from the well know fact new.net is under financial burden I think it's appropriate to recognize their efforts but in the end like any dot.com it is doomed to failure. why? they are not an open system - they must pay their way. of course inclusive namespace has always maintained an open invitation to them which may yet save them. and the proof is in the puddin so to speak. i refer you to page 31 http://www.caida.org/outreach/presentations/2002/nanog0210/duane.pdf these are the results from root server f. some of the domains with multiple sources are within the inclusive namespace. what happening are usg users are clicking on iclusive namespace urls and the usg root is catching the error. now page 31 has alot of tlds which are used as machine names. that just alots of misconfigured computers and resolvers - like the localhost where am i sort of thing. now elvis is a mistery tld. i have no idea what is happening there. multiple sources. maybe people are search for elvis on the internet. this made me suspect of the data immediately. others look like internal organization which use what look like a proprietary tld. based on the data there - i'm not sure but i suspect somewhere out in the wild someone somewhere is testing out a UTF-8 internationalised top level domain. this sort of seepage in the dns is normal and makes me wet with excitement. But no where can you see the new.net tlds in the top ten on this list. and i have no reason to doubt their 170 million user claim which give them at least 20 - 30 % stake in the total internet user population. new.net should be all over this page. i've always complained they have never effectively marketed thier tlds. now - i also warn - without seeing the source of this data. whitout knowing the distribution of multiple sources by ip - and the distribution of sld (second level domain) i can't verify much of it. but it's an indicator and CAIDA agrees. i will be asking them for more detailed information. and in case i can't get it - i'll have test result in a year. i think the data is a good guide but my tests - although i would not be so bold as to thing the data accurate - i do suspect it will be a better guide then page 31. > Why not. ICANN has no legitimacy to "grant" rights into a TLD. > Only the ISPs decide if a TLD is a valid one or not. If they decide to > resolve .God Domains, then it is a valid TLD. exactly. as i have always indicted the end user is in charge. god bless the end user. and isp's are the next link in this upside down food chain called the internet. > If Joe would have the money he could pay e.g. EarthLink to resolve his .God > domain names. I don't know if Joe has > such sums...New.net has it. I would never do that. We hold the rights - were happy with our progress - and were confident we'll win and someday be available to all. while new.net spends its investors fortunes and icann seeks government cover - we will win. because only inclusive namespace is inclusive. all of you have the right to participate in any way you deem right. users rule. god bless the users. regards joe baptista Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god dot.film domain registration http://www.register.film a member of the TLDA http://www.tlda.net/
