On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 15:50:05 -0700 (PDT), Greg Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>William X. Walsh wrote:
>
>> ICANN has made it VERY clear they ARE restricting entry into the
>
>IANA root
The default root, and you would be surprised how many people believe
that if they don't point to it, their dns/internet will be broken.
>> registry business.
>
>Alternative registries are outside of their scope.
No, they are not.
>> Your arguments about alternative registries is
>> about as disingenious as Tony saying NSI has competition because there
>> are 80 ccTLDs that permit global registrations.
>
>I am hardly naive. I have been around the Internet for almost 20
>years. I remember quite well shlepping /etc/hosts and pathalias
>tables around.
I never said you were naive, I said disingenuous. You are purposely
engaging in a an argument over semantics in an attempt to justify
ICANN's approach to restrictions on new registries.
>DNS didn't just come about by Postel and others saying "It is so." In
>fact it was quite some time before DNS was adopted on a widespread
>basis, even within (what was) the ARPA community. It took a good
>deal of coordination, and convincing people that it would work, before
>DNS was widely embraced. (It was never universally embraced, because
>people started using private DNS and other alternative setups, for
>security and other reasons.)
>
>Perhaps when the alternative registries organize themselves to the
>level that the original DNS developers did, ICANN will see fit to add
>them to the IANA root.
Spare me this garbage. What's worse, Greg, is that I KNOW you know
better than this.
--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
"The fact is that domain names are new and have unique
characteristics, and their status under the law is not yet clear."
--Kent Crispin (June 29th, 1999)
