>Milton Mueller wrote:
>>
>> >From the article:
>>
>> "Since PGMedia filed its suit, however, the Internet landscape has
>> changed drastically, throwing a monkey wrench into an
>> already-complicated lawsuit. Last fall, the National Science
>> Foundation passed responsibility for the Internet to Commerce
>> Department, which in turn has laid out a plan to turn administration
>> to a private company and open up registration competition. By March,
>> five companies are slated to offer wholesale registration to addresses
>> ending in ".com," ".net," and ".org," and by June, the field is slated
>> to be opened to any accredited registrar."
>>
>> My reply:
>> So what? Anybody can register names in com net and org now. New
>> registrars don't add new TLDs.
>>
>> My further comment:
>> Where are all those "shared TLD" advocates from the gTLD-MoU days?
>> PGMedia is arguing for a completely open, shared namespace. Of course,
>> it wouldn't be under the control of POC, PAB, or CORE--or ICANN. I
>> guess that makes it kinda unattractive, eh?
>>
>> --MM
>>
>
"John B. Reynolds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The reason for PGMedia's lack of support is that their stated plans are
>simply not credible. Their version of shared registries depends upon
>universal replacement of the existing DNS with their vaguely described and
>questionably feasible SINDI and PAM protocols. Their "interim solution" in
>the absence of these protocols would effectively give PGMedia absolute
>authority over all new TLDs, thereby replacing the existing NSI monopoly
>with an NSI/PGMedia duopoly.
This assessment is totally inaccurate.
SINDI does not replace BIND, it "helps" it.
It has been tested in our lab and we are now
working on a version for release. It works.
PAM (Portable Address Manager) is already in existance and our users love it.
Also, our sWhois is a big hit as well (http://swhois.net)
Your conclusion that Name.Space and NSI will be a duopoly also
shows a careless reading of our interim pre-sharing plan. This
is clearly not our intent.
Here is a direct quote from our proposal:
[...]
Interim solution:
all registries up and running currently with tld's
will have any populated zones added to the "." file
either through court action against NSI, or through
industry consensus, or both.
Committment to development:
in the short term, there will be clusters of shared tld's,
reselling (wholesale) agreements of legacy tld's, as well
as new ones where sharing is not yet implemented.
This puts people in business and makes new namespaces available
in the short term to benefit the public, and doesn't stall the
the birth of a new industry by virtue of a simple text edit.
[...]
reference: http://namespace.org/expand
Please inform youself fully of the facts (not your biased interpretation)
before you make such (wrong) public declarations about Name.Space.
thank you.
Paul Garrin,
President
Name.Space
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://name.space-beats-internic.net
"Hack code, not people"
