Ed and all,
Well said Ed, and a very good point indeed. One that seems to be
ignored far too often by some with a specific political bent. The
internet including the DNS is supposed to be an open forum of
communication and e-commerce, not a closed cabel.
Ed Gerck wrote:
> Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 01:08:22PM -0700, Ed Gerck wrote:
> > >
> > > Kent Crispin wrote:
> > >
> > > > ... there are multiple .web domains in
> > > > multiple roots, and none of them are part of the Internet.
> > >
> > > Then, why do you think they should be discussed as Internet matter?
> >
> > I don't, actually. I only mention it because there is no meaningful
> > distinction between my .web and IODesign's .web, and Chris insists
> > that IODesign's .web is an Internet matter. I would be perfectly
> > content to drop the matter of .web and .per and the other private
> > dns spaces entirely.
>
> I guess one can diverge about what is "part of the Internet" but if
> Joe Doe *provides* a DNS server that can resolve ".web" addresses,
> then anyone wishing to trust using Joe Doe's DNS server will see all those
> ".web" addresses on the Internet. Thus, they are part of the Internet if they
> can be accessed through the Internet. IMO, the fact that not all netizens
> can see them does not invalidate them to be "part of the Internet", in the
> same way that HTML pages protected by HTTP passswords are
> "part of the Internet" even though not all netizens can see them.
>
> In fact, selective DNS access has a positive side also -- as a type of
> password. But, this is another issue. Note also that I am distinguishing
> between *claiming* and *providing* -- since the inadequacy of TLD
> claims without provision of services has been noted by myself here.
>
> > [...]
> > > > At this point, NSI is the only gTLD registry.
> > >
> > > This is perhaps the motivation for the TLD constituency and TLDA itself.
> >
> > While I certainly have no love of NSI, as I understand the current
> > rules they will get one seat on the names council. Given their
> > position as the only gTLD registry, that is perhaps reasonable, but
> > it certainly is an anomaly, one that can only be fixed by there
> > being more gTLD registries. So, it seems likely that there will be
> > more gTLD registries. Somehow I don't think that the problems with
> > NSI bode well for the creation of high profit monopoly registries in
> > the NSI model...as is well known, my preferred model is where
> > registry operators (which may be for-profit entities) bid to operate
> > non-profit registries on behalf of ICANN. There should be several
> > such registries, and several such registry operators, and the
> > operations should be thrown open to competitive bid every few years.
>
> Agreed, in general.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ed Gerck
>
>
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
