<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [registrars] Ross's Motion - Suggeseted Amendment
- To: Rob Hall <rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [registrars] Ross's Motion - Suggeseted Amendment
- From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:01:08 -0400
- Cc: Registrars Mail List <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <COEELGHKNGFGPAPMBEELOEDFCOAA.rob@momentous.com>
- Organization: Tucows Inc.
- References: <COEELGHKNGFGPAPMBEELOEDFCOAA.rob@momentous.com>
- Reply-to: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030901 Thunderbird/0.2
On 9/18/2003 2:07 PM Rob Hall noted that:
Ross: I agree it needs to suspend the current .com implementation. I am a
little softer on the .museum folks, as I understand they have been doing it
for a while, and frankly, none of us gave a damn. Given that they did it
with ICANN permission, I see no reason to back step them as well. Just
Verisign, who ignored process and went ahead on their own ... damn the
torpedoes.
To borrow Vixie's words - its about expectations. .tv, .museum and .cc
registrants expect wildcards in their TLD, as do application developers
and ISPs.
No one expects this of .com, .net, .org, .info, .biz, .aero, .name or .pro.
Anyone on this latter list must go through a community consultation
before they can offer this service - in order that we can, as a
"community" determine whether its reasonable to a) change our
expectations regarding the status quo, or b) disallow the use of
wildcards in a specific domain for specific reasons.
Drawing the lines seems very simple from my perspective.
--
-rwr
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|