Re: New TLDs

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Kent and all,

Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Nov 12, 1997 at 09:03:35AM -0500, Steve Heflin wrote:
> > >
> > >   I think that you misunderstand what Bob means.  I doubt that he
> > > is talking about everyone getting their own little pet TLD.  We have
> > > had this topic of discussion several times I believe.  But to only
> > > admit 7 new gTLD's is simply to silly to even be considered
> > > reasonable.  Yes, I know the restriction on only 7 new gTLD's
> > > was lifted, but if this is truely to be the case, why not allow
> > > .PER or some of the other RSC TLD's into the ROOT as well at the
> > > same time.  With a reasonable restriction as to how many of
> > > course.
> >
> > Not being a member of IAHC or CORE or anything along those lines, I can't
> > say for sure but isn't it reasonable to believe that they will allow more
> > after a time?  Or that these seven are a start?
> 
> It is my opinion that the question is almost completely open :-).
> There are arguments that there should be no new TLDs at all; there are
> arguments that there should be hundreds or thousands.  The IAHC needed
> *something* to get the whole thing off the ground, though, and they
> picked 7.

  Yes they picked 7.  Most of which form back to the old IAHC-Discuss
list (See archives) did not have any consensus amonge those on that list
not was any real effort made to seek input from the Internet COmmunity
at large on those 7 gTLD's or weather 7 was a good number.
> 
> The MoU pretty clearly delegates to the POC the ability to create new
> gTLDs; it clearly does not delegate the ability to create all kinds of
> TLDs (the ISO TLDs being an obvious example); and IMO it is still open
> for IANA to support creation of other TLDs (with very good
> justification, of course).

  Yes I agree.  The real question that should have preceeded the IAHC
perposal or been determined as a seperate document or procedure
foe what the criterian for selection should or could be.  This is yet
to be done, and should have been done FIRST.  This appears to have been
either an obvious oversite on the part of the IANA and possibly the
InterNic.
> 
> Overall, IMO, this is an unsatisfactory situation.  In fact, because
> of name collisions, there can ultimately be only one authority that
> decides about *all* the TLDs, whether gTLDs, nTLDs or whatever.

  I am not sure that only One authority should be in a possition to
make the decision as to weather or what gTLD's or TLD's should be 
added.  This should be left up to the Internet community at large
to determine and the IANA or ISOC it determine how to impliment only.
  
> What is missing is a coherent set of policies/procedures/mechanisms that
> define how new TLDs are added.  There have been various proposals in
> the past -- hopefully, after the dust surrounding the creation of
> CORE settles, some work can be done on this problem.

  Bad approach to decision making.  The ole, Cart befor the Hourse
routine again I see.  
> 
> --
> Kent Crispin                            "No reason to get excited",
> kent@songbird.com                       the thief he kindly spoke...
> PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
> http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

Regards,
-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. (Soon to be INEG. INC) Stay tunned! 
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com

Wisdom:   "One who knows others is wise,
           one who knows himself is enlightened."
           Lao Tzu