Interesting reading is: -------- draft-postel-iana-itld-admin-01.txt J. Postel ISI June 1996 New Registries and the Delegation of International Top Level Domains draft-postel-iana-itld-admin-01.txt ---------- which can be found at ftp://ftp.ripe.net/internet-drafts/draft-postel-iana-itld-admin-01.txt I believe RIPE has a position on these issues and it should be communicated to IANA. Daniel
I believe RIPE has a position on these issues and it should be communicated to IANA.
Indeed we have, and it is hardly reflected in the draft. The case for more TLDs is largely based on vague and unattributed generalisations of the "there is a perceived need..." and "it is considered undesirable..." variety. More ominously, we are told that "market forces dictate...". If "the market" is to govern the Internet, and dictatorship is its avowed form of governance, then it is pointless to circulate drafts, let alone comment on them. The draft selects some arguments against its case, but these are largely straw men. Also, there is no consideration of alternatives to the .com problem (let's face it, that's what this is all about), such as its proper use and the use of country TLDs. Whatever about the predominance of "market forces", I hope that RIPE can, in commenting on this draft, convey the strong and very constructive views of its members, particularly as expressed at January's meeting (RIPE-23). Regards. Mike Norris
The case for more TLDs is largely based on vague and unattributed generalisations of the "there is a perceived need..." and "it is considered undesirable..." variety. More ominously, we are told that "market forces dictate...". If "the market" is to govern the Internet, and dictatorship is its avowed form of governance, then it is pointless to circulate drafts, let alone comment on them. Right, and the interesting, though sad, thing is that all those official "Internet bodies", who are supposed to keep the Internet *technically* healthy and running, at least *seem* to be backing this nonsense and thus to be trading in technical arguments for commercial ones. The penultimate consequence of market force dictation will be that all current 1st level domains (or 2nd level where there are "artificial" 1st level domains) will be replaced by top level domains. Back to uucp times... Piet
Quoting from Piet Beertema's message:
The case for more TLDs is largely based on vague and unattributed generalisations of the "there is a perceived need..." and "it is considered undesirable..." variety. More ominously, we are told that "market forces dictate...". If "the market" is to govern the Internet, and dictatorship is its avowed form of governance, then it is pointless to circulate drafts, let alone comment on them. Right, and the interesting, though sad, thing is that all those official "Internet bodies", who are supposed to keep the Internet *technically* healthy and running, at least *seem* to be backing this nonsense and thus to be trading in technical arguments for commercial ones. The penultimate consequence of market force dictation will be that all current 1st level domains (or 2nd level where there are "artificial" 1st level domains) will be replaced by top level domains. Back to uucp times...
Piet
Piet, don't you think it is the case to send your opinion, which I fully agree, on the tld-admin@ripe.net list, so that also Jon Postel can read it? Blasco ---------- ---------- Antonio-Blasco Bonito E-Mail: bonito@nis.garr.it GARR - Network Information Service c=it;a=garr;p=garr;o=nis;s=bonito c/o CNUCE - Istituto del CNR Tel: +39 50 593246 Via S. Maria, 36 Fax: +39 50 904052 I-56126 PISA Telex: 500371 CNUCE I Italy Url: http://www.nis.garr.it/nis/staff/bonito.html ---------- ----------
Daniel Karrenberg writes:
Interesting reading is:
--------
draft-postel-iana-itld-admin-01.txt J. Postel ISI June 1996
New Registries and the Delegation of International Top Level Domains
draft-postel-iana-itld-admin-01.txt
Wouldn't implementing this proposal lead to increased load on the root nameservers since more TLD's would be queried? Pete
Petri Helenius <pete@sms.fi> writes:
Wouldn't implementing this proposal lead to increased load on the root nameservers since more TLD's would be queried?
Yes there whould be an increase, but not really a significant one. 1) There are 184 TLDs there now: AD. AE. AG. AI. AL. AM. AN. AO. AQ. AR. ARPA. AT. AU. AW. AZ. BB. BE. BF. BG. BH. BJ. BM. BN. BO. BR. BS. BW. BY. BZ. CA. CF. CH. CI. CK. CL. CM. CN. CO. COM. CR. CU. CY. CZ. DE. DJ. DK. DM. DO. DZ. EC. EDU. EE. EG. ES. ET. FI. FJ. FM. FO. FR. GB. GD. GE. GH. GI. GL. GN. GOV. GR. GT. GU. GY. HK. HN. HR. HU. ID. IE. IL. IN. INT. IR. IS. IT. JM. JO. JP. KE. KH. KI. KN. KR. KW. KY. KZ. LA. LB. LC. LI. LK. LS. LT. LU. LV. MA. MC. MD. MG. MIL. MK. ML. MN. MO. MR. MT. MU. MX. MY. MZ. NA. NATO. NC. NE. NET. NF. NG. NI. NL. NO. NP. NZ. OM. ORG. PA. PE. PF. PG. PH. PK. PL. PR. PT. PY. QA. RO. RU. SA. SB. SE. SG. SI. SK. SM. SN. SR. SU. SV. SY. SZ. TH. TN. TO. TR. TT. TV. TW. TZ. UA. UG. UK. US. UY. UZ. VA. VC. VE. VI. VN. VU. WS. YU. ZA. ZM. ZW. 2) Any frequently used TLD NS RRs will be cached. So *this* is not a problem. Daniel
participants (5)
-
Antonio_Blasco Bonito -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Mike Norris -
Petri Helenius -
Piet Beertema