Re: a new DNS root for the world?

["JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey at jefsey.com>]

Dear Jaap,
Full agreement, but this does not address my concern.

I fully understand that Internet designers tell what "should" be. As 
trying to use the Internet solutions in continuity with others 
management tools of the common digital ecosystem, I am more 
interested in what "can" be. And how to practically protect stability 
and to address my needs.

The real concern is a PathFinder II. The users shown they liked 
PathFinder. If NeuStar introduces it on mobiles, to pay for its 
service, it will quickly leak. Two lines more in the loading script 
of the already disputed NTIA root file. In addition to the Chinese 
TLDs may already add. Whatever the size of a pollution, if the users 
like it, it will become a service easily documented by "how to make 
your PC compatible with your Mobile" every where.

- either the IETF stays dogmatic about it and we run into the risk 
that the DNS root governance is no more an ICANN/UN contest.
- or the IETF can propose the innovative solution PathFinder shown 
users are waiting for a long.

In both cases the only chance to delay the risk is to expose it. This 
is what I do, as I did for RFC 3066 bis. May be will I be PR-actioned 
for that too?

jfc
"an Internet user on the IETF mailing lists"

At 17:57 09/10/2005, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote:
>     --On mandag, oktober 03, 2005 09:53:06 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
>     <brc at zurich.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>     > JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
>     >> 
> http://www.neustar.com/pressroom/files/announcements/ns_pr_09282005.pdf
>     >> Comments welcome. Is it to be understood as an alt-root? or is it a
>     >> legitimate hower single operator?
>     >
>     > Neither. .gprs appears to be a private pseudo-TLD inside a walled
>     > garden for GPRS operators. It doesn't have anything to do with
>     > the Internet's namespace. .3gppnetwork.org appears to be a
>     > perfectly normal Internet 2LD.
>
>     Note that I regard the GSMA board's insistence on ".gprs" as
>     an incredibly stupid move.  If someone proposes to register
>     ".gprs" in the global root, ICANN will have to do the same thing
>     they did with ".biz" and disregard anyone operating a "toy
>     domain" within their own walled garden.
>
>     And if they choose to register ".gprs" in the global root, those
>     who have depended on accessing information from the GSMA "private
>     root" and the global root simultaneously will be in a world of
>     pain.
>
>     Until that happens, the only pain felt to the Internet at large
>     will be from the usual leakage of private names into global
>     contexts.
>
> To illlustrate how stupid, this is the second .gprs running within
> a walled garden I hear about. A couple of years ago one was running
> in europe as well, next to the .umts domain. It might still be
> running as far as I know.
>
>         jaap
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf