"Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greg Skinner wrote:
>> ... you cannot compare the two because usenet is not critical
>> infrastructure to Internet operation as DNS is. This is not to say
>> that usenet is not important. However, it is nowhere near as
>> necessary for reliable Internet operation as DNS is.
> Do you have a closer parallel to the expansion of dns names ?
Not the point. The issue is stability of a critical Internet service.
>> I also note that a lot of the key figures in IETF and ISOC who support
>> ICANN never had much to do with usenet news. Thus it is not very
>> likely that they have much confidence in that mode of
>> self-governance.
> Vixie was, and hw was the only member of the group facetiously
> knoen as the "backbone cabal" that thought alt would be the death
> of usenet.
Go back and read what I wrote. I never said no key figures in this
debacle had anything to do with usenet news. Many of the key figures
were not major participants in usenet. I'm talking about people like
Vint Cerf, Don Heath, ie. the people who the USG is listening to.
Vixie was involved with usenet news, but he is not currently an
advocate of the type of name expansion the alternative TLD movements
propose. We have been through this before.
My guess is that Cerf and company are well aware of the type of
self-governance that accompanied the name expansion of usenet. The
DNS equivalent of rmgroup wars, for example, would be considered a
serious threat to stability.
--gregbo
gds at best.com
