-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> I am sorry to repeat it (and I will try not to say it too many times
> again): the terms of the ".arpa" sub global namespace delegation are
> described in RFC 920 by Jon Postel himself.
Request For Comment number 920 is simply a now historic record of a policy
statement between the IAB and the DARPA in 1984 regarding establishment of
Top Level Domains, and had a focus predominately on USA-based
organisations.
> The creation of ".biz" (as
> .info and others) are not permitted under that delegation.
A strict reading of this now 18 year old document, status 'UNKNOWN', gives
the initial (ie, there could be more) Top Level Domains as:
Initial Set of Top Level Domains
The initial top level domain names are:
[list of arpa, gov, edu, com, mil, org, and possible ISO-country-code]
Further down, it explicitly states that new top level domains could be
created:
Top Level Domain Registrar
As the registrar for top level domains, the NIC is the contact
point for investigating the possibility of establishing a new top
level domain.
So, your statement regarding the creation of '.biz' and others being
impossible is incorrect, as ICANN, for better or for worse, appears to be
the current Registrar for the Top Level Domain ('.') for the time being,
and can (under RFC920) investigate and by extension implement, new top
level domains.
> Solution 1. we forget about it and build it anew. Then ICANN, ccTLDs, gTLDs
> lare level with ORSC, New.net, etc. We will need an international forum
> where to discuss and settle a new agreement: this can only be the ITU. I am
> not sure we want that.
I'm an idealist. In a world where I am God-Emperor, organisations have
their domain name in 'orgname.orgtype.country-code'. If they straddle a
goodly number of countrys, then they might be permitted to also have
'orgname.orgtype.int', if they're lucky, and provide me with a reasonable
facsimile of my long-dead love/advisor/whatever [1].
However, that is not this world, and is a good example of why I don't do
policy.
May I remind you that this is the Internet _Engineering_ Task Force. The
IETF's task is to propose and implement technical solutions for the
Internet. Political arguments on meta designs such as who should control
the Top Level Domain(s) or why some organisation with an amusing acronym
should not be in control, whilst an amusing and non-productive way to
wile away an afternoon, should not be part of the IETF discussions.
Alternative Roots are just that, Alternatives, or more accurately, amusing
Non-Portable Fragmented Extensions of the Current Root.
- --
Bruce Campbell. My opinions are my own.
[1] This is a reference to the Frank Herbert _Dune_ series.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE9SZf+5GBMOVYsixsRAjDvAJ9MeGi9XxU51E1YXYKSsZSR6eGl6wCdHsLH
fzpoZFqTXI1MDCiZxQEajz8=
=JEfG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----