On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> On 16-Feb-99 Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> > > Oh, I agree with you entirely, unless, for instance, the chartering
> > > authority were to take care of that for you by, say, issuing valid PGP keys
> > > before a domain application was even possible.
> >
> > I don't follow. How would verification of the sender allow automatic
> > determination of content?
> Say for example, that some international accrediting group for Penguin
> Research Scientists issues a PGP encrypted coupon for a domain name in
> the .penguin TLD to each of their members. They would have to submit
> this coupon along with their domain application to validate that they
> "belong" to this group and thus meet the charter.
That's exactly what I am saying. Running a template through a parser is
trivial. Even I can hack something gross which does glue records.
And whether someone at the registry decides, or someone elsewhere, if 10
million Penguin huggers want domains, you run into the delay.
> My problem with all of this is that we are limiting the use of a string
> to particular purpose. .penguin could also be used for other purposes,
> and to restrict the use of that string to a particular purpose ONLY
> basically strikes me badly.
I am purely looking at the implementation. If implementation is not
possible, we can stop wasting time and insults on the issue.
> I've yet to see an example of it that isn't wrought with problems.
> Someone said .doctor be administer by the AMA, but they means that other
> "doctors" who are not medical doctors are deprived of the use of a
> string that also identifies them. Now, say we had .doctor, we could
> delegate md.doctor to the AMA and they could then issue names as they
> please.
The AMA, by the way, can only speak for its members, a few American
medical practitioners.
el
