Should Two Letter TLDs Be Immune ?
On Monday, April 27, 1998 1:04 PM, John Charles Broomfield[SMTP:jbroom at manta.outremer.com] wrote: <snip For you and me a mismanaged TLD is probably something @important which should be dealt with. Some governments probably can't see @the importance of it (yet?), but that doesn't give legitimacy to someone @from outside trying to take it over. @ Just as the computer security experts will tell you.... the people on the "outside" may not be nearly as big a problem as the people on the "inside". While I understand the history of the 2 letter TLDs, I am not sure that you can enforce anything beyond what will become common in the generic TLDs. Also, in the end the Root Name Server Cluster operators make the decision and they may not know who has the endorsement of the government and who does not. Would you be in favor of requiring that some "official" statement/letter/etc. from a real government official be scanned and placed on the web site ? - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI http://www.nic.vi -------- Logged at Tue Apr 28 00:56:10 MET DST 1998 ---------
Jim Fleming wrote:
On Monday, April 27, 1998 1:04 PM, John Charles Broomfield[SMTP:jbroom at manta.outremer.com] wrote: <snip For you and me a mismanaged TLD is probably something @important which should be dealt with. Some governments probably can't see @the importance of it (yet?), but that doesn't give legitimacy to someone @from outside trying to take it over. @
Just as the computer security experts will tell you.... the people on the "outside" may not be nearly as big a problem as the people on the "inside".
:)
While I understand the history of the 2 letter TLDs, I am not sure that you can enforce anything beyond what will become common in the generic TLDs. Also, in the end the Root Name Server Cluster operators make the decision and they may not know who has the endorsement of the government and who does not.
Your idea about how DNS is going to evolve, and my idea about it are quite different. That could be a reason of why you have different views than me on how they should be managed.
Would you be in favor of requiring that some "official" statement/letter/etc. from a real government official be scanned and placed on the web site ?
Who "requires" it? Note that now, nearly all 2 letter TLDs *are* delegated, so I presume you are saying that you would require it of the CURRENT TLDs. You want IANA to require it? And what if the administrators of the TLD either can't be bothered, or basically can't find anyone in the local government that can be bothered to give an official statement? Probably the same TLDs which you are trying to fix would be the ones who you wouldn't be able to get an "official" government statement from. So what do you do? You kick them out of the IANA root (or whatever root) for not getting that statement/letter/etc? Suddenly from having a (in you view) mismanaged TLD, you suddenly have a bunch of orphan SLDs... On the other hand if you had required many of the current country-code TLDs to get an official endorsement BEFORE being allowed to setup the TLD, probably half of them today wouldn't be running. No, I don't think it is a good idea to REQUIRE the statement. However, having the statement/letter/whatever would be a good recomendation, and I'm sure that most TLD admins would be very proud to produce something like that... Yours, John Broomfield. GP & MQ NIC -------- Logged at Tue Apr 28 01:36:37 MET DST 1998 ---------
participants (2)
-
jbroom＠manta.outremer.com -
JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net