Re: [ga] the further evolution of...

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have a question. My new hosting company is webhosting.pn and the
nameservers are ns1.webhosting.pn and ns2.webhosting.pn

However, several domain name companies are not allowing you to change to
those nameservers saying they are invalid.

Is this a common problem with companies when using ccTLDs? If so, why?

Enom, which has always provided me good service wouldn't recognize them as
nameservers. GoDaddy did though. Other companies like NameSecure did not
recognize them either.

Any insight as to what the problem is and why would be helpful. Are ccTLDs
like second class citizens?

Chris McElroy
http://www.articlecontentprovider.com
http://www.webhosting.pn


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "JFC Morfin" <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>; <vint@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 7:36 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] the further evolution of...


> At 17:33 07/04/2006, Danny Younger wrote:
> >Personally, I like the approach recently taken by the
> >Board that appoints a Presidential Committee to
> >investigate an area (such as IDN) even though an SO
> >(such as the GNSO) also has the topic within its
> >purview.
>
> I am sorry, but that approach is biased. President committee members
> are selected by the President. They can help the President get more
> inputs to support his own policy. They cannot help him understand
> reality,  nor other positions, if he does not teach them first about
it/them.
>
> The IDN PC is a magistral failure and may actually be the end of
> ICANN due to the magnitude of what is related. I know because I carry
> a next generation effort in that area. The reason  why is that all
> the participants (even participants with actual involvement in
> non-ICANN issues) share into the same architectural mistake. They
> accept the globalization doctrine (internationalization of the
> network + localization of the edges) Unicode infiltrated people made
> adopted by IETF, by W3C and partly by ISO. Now by Google and Yahoo!
> orVerisign. The idea of the IAB and IDN-PC is that this doctrine was
> well embodied by the WG-IDNA and is not well applied. This is uncorrect.
>
> - Internet wise: the WG-IDNA RFCs were decided against me, in saying
> that if they did not work one could change them. The IDNA application
> layer orientation is an architectural error. The lack of
> understanding of catenet (the underlaying doctrine to the Internet
> network aggregation) lead to a conceptual DNS error and to the
> generalised phishing problem.
>
> - the Unicode doctrine works and was correctly deployed. But it only
> works for the Internationalised US Internet (Internet is partly an
> English semantic system, not a fully digital one). The problem is
> that people want a Multilingual Internet. Meaning an equal linguistic
> opportunity and satisfaction basis whatever the language. This is NOT
> feasible with the Internet current architecture. The result is
> different patches, constraints, disloyal actions, IESG decisions to
> support WG consensuses the IESG then violates. For a simple reason,
> money is in the lead and Unicode's internationalization doctrine
> cannot scale to languages, technologies and usage, so they try to
> constrain (RFC 3066 Bis) the Internet within its limited
> possibilities, or to absurdly use CNAMES or to multiply ITLDs. While
> the solution is so simple: they are mentally unable to understand
> what China has done, along architectural principles I saw
> successfully applied since 1977 everywhere, except in  the Internet
> because until now it did not need them.
>
> Amazing.
> jfc
>
>