Donald Eastlake wrote: > I can not see what can possibly be objectionable about the mere > publicizing of the fact that IANA long ago reserved these three > second level domain names for use as examples and it happens that > they are still so reserved. Neither we nor the DNSIND working group > reserved them. We didn't even say whether we thought it was a good > idea also I suppose to some extent that is implied by publicizing > them. We certainly didn't state or claim any kind of policy that any > additional second level domain names should be reserved or that even > the one second level label "example" should be reserved in any other > top level domain names. Mentioning the curiousity of "example.com/net/org" implies it is a practice ya'll would like to see continued. Not highly inoffensive in and of itself. As a convention it may well continue. As a rule it pushes into areas of the namespace management that must be controlled from anywhere but a regultory centre. Only the broadest, most general guidelines of the most facilitative and inobtrusive nature should be promulgated not nit picky micromanagement. Another quaint practice in the namespace is how many highly coveted one letter TLDs (A.COM for example) are owned by ISI (Information Sciences Institute) and held on reserve, how words like "fuck" are not allowed to be registered as Domains by our prissy American cousins down at Network Solutions and the highly suspicious process by which so-called "National" Top Level Domains have been passed off to various insiders in the past. Another heinous error is the way our personal and business informnation has been datamined through WHOIS searches, to the point where my commerecial PO Box is weekly jammed with junk mail Addressed to: "Administrative Contact" ! Many of these previous practices are "mentionable" and even acceptable to some who may benifit by them. However merely the suggestion that we merge them into the future regulation of the namespace is unacceptable. Using our own .FCN domain name as an example: there is no damn way we're going to allow ISI to own or control *any* portion of namespace we will steward! Likewise we won't be censoring anyone choice of charachter set for their domain or engaging in corrupt name assignment back room dealings! Finally all of our registrants information will be PRIVATE and very much PROTECTED data. No-one will see more than the name and corresponding IP address. The rest is CONFIDENTIAL and will be respected as such. The subtle attempt to wedge allegedly inobtrusive practices which are actually malfunctions the result of an artificial monopoly held over the namespace in the past must be resisted with reason and determination. No way in hell we should wake up in two or three years and find that the same rotten and oppressive mess that exists now is extended to every new TLD under the .SUN. This is something we can effectively route here and now and I call for Mr. Eastlake and Company to excise the objectionable mention from their otherwise okay RFC. Thank you. Bob Allisat Free Community Network _ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fcn.net _ http://fcn.net/allisat http://robin.fcn.net
