Hi Jim, Maybe we'll all be lucky when you finally one day notice that your plan is dead in the water. One of many flaws is to expect that everyone will follow a list in the order you have drawn it up. As you are so intent on noting the numbers in your plan for Guadeloupe and Martinique, I'll add a couple of notes to that. You keep saying that your plan means that TLDs with grouped interest will come together. However, directly you manage to: -put Guadeloupe in Group 1 (with both 2 letter and 3 letter codes) -put Martinique in Group 2 (" " ") -put France in Group 3 (" " ") -put France Metropolitan in Group 3 (" " ") -despite it not existing any longer in ISO-3166 -have an entry for ".Reunion" but no entry for ".RE" (despite being in ISO-3166) -have no entries for either ".pm" (St. Pierre & Michelon) nor ".yt" (Mayotte). (I note that ".re", ".pm" & ".yt" are all in the IANA root -although I also note that they are practically unused). I would imagine that all french territories would have common interests. Other discrepancies: Greenland is in Group 1 Denmark is in Group 3 Netherlands in Group 3 Netherlands Antilles in Group 2 Portugal in Group 3 Macao (".mo") is left out... UK in Group 3 Isle of Mann (".im) is left out... Jersey (".je") is left out... Guernsey surprisingly is in group 3 however. I've just found in two seconds 6 currently working TLDs left out, and I have NOT compared the current root to your list. Presumably more are missing. Even if it's only the 6 above, you've just swiped out 3% of existing TLDs. Nice. Of course that's only a VERY superficial look at the pipe-dream. If in what group you are is not so important, then why have groups at all. (What's the purpose of the plan then?) If in what group you are IS important, why is it so mixed up? Don't you think that people would fight over what group to be in? Everyone would want to be in the "nice" groups (like Group 0 with com, net, org , or maybe Group 1 with ".us", or maybe group 3 with the europeans). Make up your mind Jim, either Geograpolitical distribution matters or it doesn't. If it does, then why the discrepancies I've found in 2 seconds? If it doesn't then why have you lumped together com/net/org in one group, the euro's in another, north america in another... Also, don't you think it's a bit presumptious to lump in all the U.S. states in there? What about all the provinces of France for example? Where are all the regions of China? Your plan *might* be a good exercise in theory. Taking it to the practice and declaring yourself God as to how you create the groups is doing exactly what you criticise others: ie trying to create a system with no oversight. Yours, John Broomfield. (sick and tired of being mentioned by Jim Flemings pipe-dreams). Jim Fleming wrote:

...

At 11:43 AM 10/2/98 , John Charles Broomfield wrote:

...

Would Jay Fenello accept to have Iperdome run by registrants of ".per" (ie, that ".per" registrants would be the shareholders of Iperdome and vote for the board etc...) Would IOD accept to be run by registrants of ".web"? No, didn't think so...

Hi John,

Given the number of times you've been proven wrong in this debate, don't you think you should at least give people a chance to answer the questions you ask?

As usual, you are WRONG again!

I would certainly consider transforming Iperdome into a membership organization for ".per" registrants.

Not only that...Jay has provide a list of 8 Trustees for the .PER TLD under the IPv8 Plan. Those Trustees are like the trustees of a public library. They make the decision about what "registry" operates the TLD for the SLD.TLD owners. Think of them as a POC for the TLD.

John Broomfield has NOT done this for the .MQ or .GP TLDs. John Broomfield has stated that he does not want anyone looking over his shoulder for those TLDs. Now, he has the country of France publishing a paper that says those TLDs are being exploited. Why does a country think that .MQ and .GP are being exploited ?

It is ironic that .MQ and .GP do not qualify for the IPv8 Plan because they do not have proper PUBLIC OVERSIGHT. John Broomfield claims that he wants TLDs to have public oversight. Why not appoint 8 Trustees for .GP and 8 for .MQ ? Maybe Annie Renard can be a Trustee for each of them. Maybe someone from the French government can be named. How about some more people from .MQ and .GP. Why is John Broomfield the only person pursuing the .MQ and .GP TLDs ?....and he does not even use those TLDs for e-mail and such.

Hopefully, people in the G1 and G2 Regions will look into this. I am busy with G0, especially 0:201 .COM.

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt 1:250 MQ (MARTINIQUE) 2:82 GP (GUADELOUPE)

Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)--<IPv4>--C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at --<IPv4>--(Java)VPC http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm

-- DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to <listserv at lists.internic.net> To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF DOMAIN-POLICY" For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP"

-------- Logged at Tue Oct 6 12:35:39 MET DST 1998 ---------