Re: Beyond China's independent root-servers -- Expanding and Fixing Domain Notation

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

At 05:36 03/03/2006, Mark Andrews wrote:
>         They are still a problem whether you think they should exist
>         or not.  The problem is that they are added unilaterally
>         and people using them expect everyone else to be able to
>         resolve them as well.  The method of adding them was wrong
>         as it does not scale.  If every language added the equivalent
>         you would have hundreds of sets of nameservers that you
>      roblems:
> 1) They are to quite some extent language-specific,
>    which is significantly different from .com and .net
>    (much more like .company and .network). .com and .net,
>    although having language-related origins, are codes
>    used across languages.

Inexact. They root in "Tymcom" (Tymnet Computer) and in "Telenet" 
(Dr. Larry Roberts' US national commercial network).

> 2) It may be the first time that a country is creating/takeing
>    over a gTLD. While I think that ultimately (and hopefully sooner
>    rather than later), we need equivalents of gTLDs in other scripts,
>    and while the question of "who gets to run a gTLD" is probably the
>    most difficult for ICANN to decide, I don't think that it would be
>    such a good idea to allocate gTLDs to countries.

Whatever we may think it seems that countries allocate themselves 
gTLDs, isn't it?

Please reread this exchange. This is the whole WG-LTRU again. You 
want to constrain the world so it fits into your own scheme. I want 
to serve the world so the technology supports its development bloom. 
With the same result: WSIS turned me right. China turns me right.

Take care.
jfc 


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