[linux-elitists] ICANN, .ORG and RFCs
Tue Mar 6 02:33:48 PST 2001
On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 08:57:24PM -0800, Heather wrote:
>>> 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.
Didn't they mostly give up on that, at least for .com, just recently?
Verisign gets to keep .com, loses .net in five years or something, and .org
becomes Verisign-independent soonish?
>> 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.
Well, first of all, if a few people find it difficult to find their ideal
gTLD, that's in my opinion a worthwhile sacrifice if we actually expand the
namespace a lot. It's getting awfully cluttered out there.
But secondly, and this would apply more to you, I'm sure there's a good way
to make rules so no people fall between. In the worst case, there could be a
new gTLD, say .gen or .misc, which expressly is only possible to register
domains in if you can't register in any of the others.
Also, I think it would be better to define rules for who can register in a
TLD by defining who *can't* register there, rather than who can. In that way,
you know exactly who you're excluding, and you can create another gTLD that's
the exact inverse of that. Hence, noone falls on the outside.
>> 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.)
I agree. On both points. Then again, I'm a representative of the Red Menace.
>> 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.
This would probably be a good thing, but Verisign would never go for it. And,
as said before, for historical reasons, they wield so much power that the
ICANN is really bound on their hands and feet. Which could be fixed if the US
government wasn't so damn non-interventionist, but I guess it's too much to
ask for them to clean up their own mess.
Joakim Ziegler - Ximian web monkey - email@example.com - Radagast@IRC
FIX sysop - free software coder - FIDEL & Conglomerate developer
http://www.avmaria.com/ - http://www.ximian.com/
More information about the linux-elitists