If you don't like USG namespace - just switch http://www.youcann.org/ point click reboot .. and it's astalavista ICANN. It's as simple as that. Regards Joe On Wed, 22 Nov 2000, Bill Stewart wrote: > I was disappointed that the IETF Ad Hoc Committee wasn't able > to generate their political clout to get their earlier > 7-new-TLD plan implemented a couple years ago. > > However, one strong similarity between their plan and ICANN's > is that both first rounds of new TLDs were pretty lame, > and if this wasn't done deliberately, it should have been, > because it's a Good Thing. It's how you get a practice round > before getting to the far more controversial valuable namespaces, > like .inc, .ltd/gmbh/sa, .mp3, .sex and .microsoft. > The limitations on the number of TLDs aren't particularly technical; > if you allow an infinite number of them, you replicate all the > problems with .com under . , and don't have a level of indirection > available to fix them with. It's worth going slowly. > > The more important questions are the openness of the namespaces; > I'm glad that ICANN rejected the WHO's .health and Nader's .union, > because they allow political groups to decide who can join > based on their political correctness positions > (would WHO allow .accupuncture.health? .joes-herbal-remedies.health? > .snakeoil.health? .homeopathy.health? Nader's group wouldn't allow a > company-dominated union, and might even have trouble with the Wobblies.) > > The $50K application fee was pure exploitation of their position; > I don't think they're making any excuses for that. > The big problem is that it limits the kinds of TLDs that can > be applied for to commercial players - experimental namespace use > like .geo is valuable, and hard to get funding for. > And like taxi monopoly medallions in New York City, > once you've charged somebody big money for their chance, > it's politically difficult to charge somebody else less or nothing later. > > Bill Stewart > > > At 08:58 AM 11/20/00 -0800, Declan McCullagh wrote: > >[My op-ed, below, appeared in today's paper. An HTML-formatted copy is at: > >http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/11/20/1714249 --Declan] > > > > The Wall Street Journal > > Monday, November 20, 2000 > > > > ICANN Use More Web Suffixes > > By Declan McCullagh > > Op-Ed > > > ..... > > One reason is that the new suffixes approved by the Internet > > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers are woefully inadequate. > > Instead of picking GTLDs that would meet market demand, ICANN decided > > to approve the lackluster set of .aero, .biz, .coop, .info, .museum, > > .name, and .pro instead. (If these were proposed brand names, you can > > bet most would fail the first focus group test.) Any more additions, > > ICANN's board members indicated, would not be approved until late > > 2001. > > > > This is absurd. Technology experts occasionally wrangle over how many > > GTLDs the current setup can include, with the better estimates in the > > millions, but few doubt that the domain name system can handle tens of > > thousands of new suffixes without catastrophe. > .... > > Another problem is a predictable one: Politics. In the past, some of > > ICANN's duties had been handled by various federal agencies. Unlike > > what some regulatory enthusiasts have suggested, however, the solution > > is not encouraging the government to again become directly involved in > > this process. A wiser alternative is a complete or near-complete > > privatization of these functions. > > > Thanks! > Bill > Bill Stewart, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639 > -- Joe Baptista http://www.dot.god/ dot.GOD Hostmaster +1 (805) 753-8697
