Re: [ga] A Proposal for ICANN - Will they Listen?

["John Palmer" <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The WorldRoot has a pretty good list: http://worldroot.net

There are some that used to be operational but are not currently operational. 
There
is a debate within the TLDA (www.tldainc.org) on how to classify those TLDs
that were once operational but that now have been shut down.  You have to 
remember
that ICANNs actions caused many operators to go out of business.

The TLDA operates a public discussion list that anyone can join. The archives 
are
available at http://lists.tldainc.org/public

One of the missions of the TLDA is to produce what is called a "TapRoot" which
is a list of all known TLDs, including colliders. Its not meant to be used as 
an operational
root zone file (since it has colliders), but at least there will be a record.

I know that the next question will be "Well, are you proposing that ICANN 
should have
to respect every TLD that was ever claimed by someone, even if it isn't 
operational?" and
"What list should ICANN use when deciding what TLDs require the consent of the 
current
TLD holder before they will accept an application?"

Those are both good questions and require some analysis in order to be 
answered. There
are, however, TLDs that ARE operational (.AMERICA, .EARTH, .LION, .USA, .Z - 
those
are mine) as well as many others (.COM2, .ONLINE, .ETC, .NOT) - those are 
AtlanticRoot
TLDS (Leah Gallegos) as well as some non-Profit/Private ones like .NGO, .NPO 
and .BRIDGE.

We also have our own SRS type of registry system called the Inclusive Namespace 
Registry
System (INRS) that has been online for over 6 years (www.adns.net is one 
registrar that uses
this system).

So, while it may be something that needs to be sorted out, there are some 
clear-cut cases - TLDs
that have been operational for a decade or more, in some cases.  I think it 
would be a good idea
to support the TLDA in its attempt to collect all known data about all known 
TLDs that are out
there. This would be a good starting point for ICANN if they were so inclined 
to be fair to existing
TLD operators.

John
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "John Palmer" <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] A Proposal for ICANN - Will they Listen?


> John,
>
> just for the purposes of furthering discussion on this point, could you point us to a single resource that lists every Inclusive 
> namespace TLD?
> Thanks,
> Danny
>
>
> --- On Sun, 6/29/08, John Palmer <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > From: John Palmer <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: [ga] A Proposal for ICANN - Will they Listen?
> > To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Date: Sunday, June 29, 2008, 12:55 PM
> > Here is an idea:
> >
> > If ICANN wanted to be fair about things, they could go a
> > long way in cleaning
> > up their reputation with the whole internet community if
> > they give a nod to the
> > Inclusive Namespace in the following way:
> >
> > Make it a requirement that if you want to bid on a new TLD
> > in the ICANN
> > system under the policy that was just approved, and if the
> > TLD you are
> > bidding on is already operational in the Inclusive
> > Namespace, that there be
> > a requirement that the bidder get the permission of the
> > current TLD holder to
> > do this.
> >
> > If I wanted to make a bid on .ABC, and if .ABC was already
> > operational
> > in the Inclusive Namespace, then I would have to do a deal
> > with the current
> > operator of .ABC, either buying him out or making him a
> > partner.
> >
> > This way, ICANN doesn't look like a thief and indeed
> > would get a boost
> > in their reputation amongst a large part of the internet
> > that doesn't like them
> > very much.
> >
> > Now, that assumes that ICANN is interested in its
> > reputation and in really
> > serving all of the community. If all they are doing is
> > grabbing for money and
> > care about little else, then this proposal will fall on
> > deaf ears.
> >
> > I guess we can always hope, because at this point its all
> > anyone has (other
> > than litigation, which I know for a fact is being planned
> > as we speak - just
> > got off a two hour conference call with some folks
> > regarding that).
> >
> > John