[105650] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Sat Jun 28 08:41:06 2008
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jean-Fran=E7ois_Mezei?= <jfmezei@vaxination.ca>
In-Reply-To: <48658FD2.2070000@vaxination.ca>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 05:40:55 -0700
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Jun 27, 2008, at 6:11 PM, Jean-Fran=E7ois Mezei wrote:
> But my uneducated opinion is that this current project appears to let
> the .TLD loose and this will result in top level domains being
> meaningless, without any trust.
Given the complexity of the new gTLD process, I think it safe to say =20
that there will be quite significant vetting of pretty much all =20
aspects of new TLD applications. The press reports that say 'the =20
floodgates have been opened' simply aren't true.
> There should have been an evolution from a tightly controlled small =20=
> set
> of TLDs towards alowly growing set of TLDs done fairly and openly.
There has been. There was an initial set of 7 new TLDs (biz, info, =20
name, museum, coop, aero, pro) back in 2002. There was much =20
(justifiable IMHO) unhappiness about the process that created these =20
TLDs. ICANN went back to the drawing board and came up with a new =20
process ('sponsored' TLDs) which resulted in travel, cat, jobs, mobi, =20=
tel, and post (xxx was in this crowd but was shot down). There was =20
much (justifiable IMHO) unhappiness about the process that created =20
these TLDs. ICANN went back to the drawing board and came up with a =20
new process. And here we are. I'm sure ICANN got it exactly right =20
this time... (OK, maybe not :-)).
Regards,
-drc
