Re: [ga] Re: On new TLDs

["M. Morfin" <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dany,
please refer yourself to the agreement we had we reached with Jon 
Postel's team in 1984 (still the rule). This is RFC 920.

It says that new TLDs (multiorganization TLDs) can be created if 
there is an expected demand of 500 Domain Names. The reason why was 
that I had to support them internationally and this costed 
administrative resources to manage the gateway, and support the users 
I wanted to be paid back. As long as the Internet was one network 
among others, new TLDs created this routing/gateway management load.

This load on many people descreased with the globality of the 
Internet and I hardly see the need today for a root file and TLD 
creation limitation. All what we need today is a IANA TLD directory 
to inform on existing TLD and the site where the TLD nameserver IP 
addresses is maintained. BTW I continue to daily maintain this file: 
http://intlnet.org/intlfile.txt and plan to introduce a better 
support of IPv6 soon.

jfc

At 20:48 07/12/2005, Danny Younger wrote:
> Hi Karl,
>
> I would imagine that in Jon Postel's day the issue
> wasn't only the competencies and ethics of a TLD
> proponent, but also the issue of "circumstance", as
> in, "under what circumstances should a new TLD be
> launched?"  Clearly Jon's iTLD file lists requests by
> competent parties that weren't acted upon.  Might I
> ask your view of what should prompt the launch of a
> new TLD?  Is it overwhelming public demand?  Should it
> be simply because some technically-competent business
> wants to profit from a new namespace?  Should it be
> just because a municipality (like Berlin) wants one?
> What principles should govern the decision to accept a
> new TLD in the root?
>
>
>
> --- Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> > I think you are getting caught up in ICANN winds and
> > tending to follow the
> > ICANN pied piper - you are being led into the
> > wilderness of ICANN minutae.
> >
> > The point on new TLDs is that ICANN should not be
> > asking whether someone
> > want or does not want a new TLD, or whether a given
> > TLD is good or bad.
> >
> > Instead ICANN should only ask if the proponent of a
> > TLD will follow
> > internet standards; operate its name servers to a
> > given set of technical
> > metrics for performance, security, recoverability,
> > and fair access; and
> > refrain from using the TLD for illegal purposes.
> >
> > Beyond that ICANN should get out of the way and let
> > innovation have its
> > day in the sun to grow and thrive or wither and
> > fail.
> >
> > ICANN has an unjustified and unwritten rule that it
> > can not allow a TLD to
> > fail.  That unjustified and unwritten rule has
> > poisoned ICANN's entire
> > history on TLD allocation.
> >
> >               --karl--
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________
> Yahoo! DSL ­ Something to write home about.
> Just $16.99/mo. or less.
> dsl.yahoo.com