RE: Registries and iTLDs

[Donald Heath <heath@linus.isoc.org>]

Simon Higgs wrote:

----------
From: 	Simon Higgs[SMTP:simon@higgs.com]
Sent: 	Friday, December 06, 1996 8:15 PM
To: 	Donald Heath; 'iahc-discuss@iahc.org'
Subject: 	Re: Registries and iTLDs

At 6:44 PM -0500 12/6/96, Donald Heath wrote:

> I would like to address, at a high level, concepts related to the possibility
> of adding _any_ new registries and iTLDs.
>
> The IAHC is attempting to resolve issues related to the above subject.
>
> As a result of that effort, I do not think we (the IAHC) should do anything
> to allow anyone, or any company, to "get rich."  I think that domain
> names are a device to allow the naming of computers that are attached
> to the Internet.  iTLDs should not be a vehicle for any entity to profit
> excessively.  They should be nothing more than what they are: an
> international resource that assist in the mechanisms to achieve
> uniqueness in domain names.
>
> That said, it begs that there should be only _shared iTLDs_, probably
> not too many (in the 100s at tops maybe); there should be _multiple
> registries_, and they should be scattered around the globe; they
> should be considered as a _public service_ with enough income to
> provide the required service and enough profit to provide the incentive
> to function.
>

This is, IMHO, the right thing to do. I have two questions:

  1) With closely controlled iTLDs such as .INT, are you prepared to make
     this domain shared, or is the phrase "only _shared iTLDs_" being loosely
     used?

Don responded:
Hmmmm.  No I don't think so.  .int is reserved for int'l treaty orgs.  I
suppose it would be feasible, but probably not desirable, and maybe
highly resisted by the UN?

  2) How do the existing iTLDs (.COM, .NET, ORG) fit into this?

Don responded:
They do fit in with my original note.

> It also says that iTLDs should not be emotionally charged and should
> be made as universal as possible  -  recognizing that we live in a world
> that has many languages; that they should be defined by a process
> that is ground-up  -  that is, not dictated, but arrived at through some
> process of gaining broad consensus.
>

Part of that process is already in place, as someone has to recommend
these names in the first place. "hostmaster@internic.net" is the
existing suggestion box. :)

> To achieve this means broad consensus and agreement  -  and I don't
> mean by just the relatively few individuals who participate on this list.
> I feel fairly certain that if we (the Internet community  -  which is growing
> to mean virtually everyone) don't agree to something along the above
> lines, governments and regulating agencies around the globe are going
> to take over the process and it will be a long time before any kind of order
> will emerge.  But they will come to the conclusions I cited above.  They
> will not allow companies or people to grow fat (wealthy) from providing
> this kind of service.
>

Unless, of course, they have "qualified" government officials on the
board of directors. Not that any particular existing company, or
federal networking organizations spring to mind.

Ooops... I didn't say that... ;-)

*&^%$#@
 -987q4[oih
NO CARRIER