At 07:11 PM 3/31/99 -0800, you wrote:
>>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).
Hey, I'm an off-roader myself. Jeep and hip boots, although in my
Colorado days I did the snow shoe bit. (Not exactly a Boulder hippie,
but hey, I tried!)
>
>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.
Well, I've no notion what that means, but I'll take your word for it.
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.
Okay, now we're communicating. The Oregon State Bar is contemplating
doing much the same thing, so that us lawyers can exchange horror stories,
cases, etc., without all you riffraff listening in. :-)
>
>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?
Heaven's no! That's why I've kept talking about the "net gods" and the fact
that www.xxx.yyy.zzz cannot be equal to www'.xxx'.yyy'.zzz'. Once you
(or somebody) factors in the fact that your "chartered TLD" is itself a
private net, then all those problems disappear. But so long as it's a TLD,
by which I mean, not to lose communication here, it is on the same "level"
as .com, .org, etc. (anyone not know what I mean by that?), the need to
establish that "private" TLD in concurrence with ICANN and other god-like
entities still remains, does it not?
Bill Lovell
>
>___________________________________________________
>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!
>
