RE: [registrars] RE: PDP Dec 05: Reserved Names Working Group: response needed

[Elmar Knipp <elmar.knipp@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Peter Stevenson- Fabulous.com wrote:

> I agree with Tim and believe that the reserving of gTLD strings from
> registration at a second level should be dropped for all new gTLDs.
>
> All new gTDL should be treated the same as each other.
>
> I do not believe or know of any adverse affects that would occur from this
> being dropped

Hi Peter and Tim,

treating everything, also unequal things, the same is in general a bad 
idea ;-)

Assume the following example: What would you say if the supervisory school 
authority of Greenland would define the rules what scholars in Brisbane 
Queensland are not allowed to wear in school? "All schools should be 
treaded the same as each other" (mis-quotation of your statement above.) I 
assume you would protest against my mis-quoting statement ;-)))

You have to decide on a case by case basis to fit the needs of the special 
addressed internet community.

@Tim: Look in the (old) RFC 1535, which deals with "... weakness realted 
to the search heuristic invoked by these same resolvers when users provide 
a partial domain name, ...". I know from some research that these old 
resolvers are still out there (< 1%). We should consider that. I am not 
argueing pro or con, just saying that there are some adverse affects.

Best regards,
Elmar

--
Elmar Knipp
CORE Internet Council of Registrars   http://corenic.org
WTC II, 29 route de Pre-Bois, CH-1215 Geneva, Switzerland