At 06:23 PM 3/31/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
>At 04:52 PM 3/31/99 -0800, you wrote:
>>At 12:22 PM 3/31/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
>>>Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> (*) The MoU failed because the competing interests refused to be
>>>> balanced, and caused the USG to get involved. This remains true with
>>>> ICANN -- ICANN will only succeed because the USG has sufficient power
>>>> to force a resolution.
>>>
>>>Hmmm. What power does the USG have to prevent people from using
>>>alternative TLDs?
>>
>>answer: None.
>
>Hey, gorgeous logo, Roeland! Stop in to see your local trademark
>lawyer!
Already saw one, years ago <grin>. 's why I did the logo.
>As to alternative TLDs in the sense of a bunch of groupies wanting
>your services, secure intra-group transmissions, etc., I say go for it.
>Of course, if I understand your lashup correctly, you'll be invisible
>to the rest of the world, but hey, you gotta pay a price for taking
>the off-road path, right?
In terms of security, a certain type of invisibility is desired. As regards
to going off-road, both the Suburban and the CJ5 are fully 4x4 qualified
(and still sport Colorado plates where 60% of the State roads are still
dirt/gravel<grin>). BTW, I also own boots, Stetson, duster, long-arm, and
side-arm. No, I didn't vote for Nighthorse (never trust a turn-coat).
Back to topic, it is no accident that you don't see actual transactions
over the InterNet. The *real* stuff uses SET rather than SSL. We're trying
to bring that same level of security to the InterNet. But the only way we
can see of doing it is via new TLDs. Basically, a TLD with only known
secure hosts in it. Hosts that have passed some sort of security audit.
These hosts would also be on the Internet but access would be via the new
TLD. You were asking about what I meant about chartered TLDs earlier? Well,
that's the nutshell explanation.
My problem is that this TLD needs to be legally defensible and enforceable.
This means that if ICANN tries to give it to someone else, or some scum-bag
tries to register an unknown host in it, MHSC would have to hunt them down
and shoot them with a law suit and make it stick. Also, because of the way
DNS works, we have to be able to prevent ICANN from registering the TLD
elsewhere on the Internet. Even a private TLD has conflict problems with a
public TLD of the same name. "There can be only one" applies here, or did
you miss Stef's explanation of the technical problem?
___________________________________________________
Roeland M.J. Meyer -
e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet phone: hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com
Personal web pages: http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
Company web-site: http://www.mhsc.com
___________________________________________________
KISS ... gotta love it!
