[linux-elitists] ICANN, .ORG and RFCs
Mon Mar 5 20:57:24 PST 2001
> > The RFCs that (I'm aware of that) pertain to .ORG are RFC-920 and
> > RFC-1591. Neither gives ICANN any basis for what they're proposing.
> > If there's something I've missed, I'm sure someone here will beat
> > me about the head with it.
> > I think it's counter-productive to start taking away domains in .ORG
> > when they've allowed NSI to practically frighten everyone into buying
> > their base name in .COM, .NET, and .ORG for so long.
I believe their efforts are to attempt to divorce that little triumvirate
out of Verisign nee' NSI's clumsy grip anyway.
> > I'd rather see a new .NPO (Non-Profit Organization) domain, tightly
> > controlled for this specific purpose, if indeed there's any good reason
> > non-profits should have a TLD of their own at all. (why should they?)
.non or .npo, sure.
And poor little underused .int.
My complaint isn't about the idea of having such a TLD, just about corrupting
.org (the one I live because I fit it best) into becoming it.
> If there's going to be *any* point to the adding of a very limited number of
> new gTLDs like the ICANN is advocating, they need to have policies on who can
> register them and for what purpose. If there are no such policies, it's
> pointless; most large corporations will just register duplicates of their
> .com in all the others, and the only effect would be to line the pockets of
> the registrars. With no guidelines, adding 10 new gTLDs would perhaps add 10%
> to the global namespace.
I also don't want to see the root level namespace so hopelessly cluttered
or maintained in such draconian fashion that there's no room for my domain
in it. I know I fit pigeonholes poorly but I do like my roost anyway.
> Some of the new gTLDs do have policies, I understand (like .coop, I believe,
> and some domain for doctors or licensed professionals or whatever), and
> that's a good thing. A non-profit organization gTLD would probably be a good
> idea too. My gut feeling tells me there should be some sort of gTLD more
> fitting for free software projects than .org, too, but I can't really think
> of what it should be called, or what the criteria should be. It's hard to
> determine what's a group of people doing something together, and what's, for
> instance, a front for a corporation.
(It could also be argued that corporate entities themselves, are a bug, but
we need bigger cannon for that war.)
> Now, this isn't to say that I think adding very few gTLDs is a good idea, but
> if that's the way they're going to go, then guidelines are needed, or it's
> going to be pointless.
It would be interesting if they actually introduced the .biz domain and
expressed that they were going to completely deprecate the overloaded and
abused .com domain, so that in N years time it (.biz) will be all commercial
entities and the .com server can be turned off and left there. This might
give Linux Gazette a headache but I do already have its .org so, it would
have a place to go.
It would also be fun to watch the fandango that happens if we simply translate
their policy to a more heavily populated TLD and they realize what trouble
they are making ;>
* Heather * "Truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction has to make sense."
More information about the linux-elitists