Karl,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karl Auerbach
writes:
>
> > >> At this point, NSI is the only gTLD registry.
> > >
> > >Not true. I operate a registry, of which I happen to be the only client
> > >at the moment, for some TLD's which I designate as .com, .edu, .net, .org.
> >
> > Now this is getting silly.
No, it is not *GETTING* silly. it *IS* silly.
> Hardly. There is nothing that prevents *anybody* from opening up their
> own system for their own .com, .net, .edu, .net, and all the cctlds.
But, they aren't in the root.
> There is absolutely nothing that says that there shall be exactly one
> version of .com and the rest of the TLDs.
You don't read RFCs, do you?
> It's merely an extension of the concept that there need not be one
> universal root.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, the pimply ORSC Domain Administrators' Brigade (aka
cyber police reservists) cum Toy Level Domain concept.
> The sillyness is that we are acting like Lemmings and marching into
> the sea simply because we don't question the fact that neither NTIA
> nor NSI nor ICANN have any ability or power whatsoever to exclude
> anybody from operating any TLD that they chose to run for whatever
> clients elect to use that service.
But ICANN is going to control the root!
> What is silly is the enormous brand name that NSI has been given, as a
> gift, by NSF and NTIA.
>
> There is much merit in having disjoint registries. Communities of
> interest can admit only those who are willing to abide by certain
> limitations -- a church might allow its registry system to include
> only those who will promise not to allow porn sites.
>
> I can hear the false wailing of those who will say "this would split
> the net".
>
> Nonesense, it no more splits the net than the fact of multiple
> publishers of telephone books splits the telephone system.
It's just not going to happen like this, they are going to go with the
preconfigured root zones on their machines. Nobody in his right mind
will load a Toy Level Domain.
el
