Re: a new DNS root for the world?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Dear Jaap,
Full agreement, but this does not address my concern.

I fully understand that Internet designers tell what "should" be. As trying to use the Internet solutions in continuity with others management tools of the common digital ecosystem, I am more interested in what "can" be. And how to practically protect stability and to address my needs.

The real concern is a PathFinder II. The users shown they liked PathFinder. If NeuStar introduces it on mobiles, to pay for its service, it will quickly leak. Two lines more in the loading script of the already disputed NTIA root file. In addition to the Chinese TLDs may already add. Whatever the size of a pollution, if the users like it, it will become a service easily documented by "how to make your PC compatible with your Mobile" every where.

- either the IETF stays dogmatic about it and we run into the risk that the DNS root governance is no more an ICANN/UN contest. - or the IETF can propose the innovative solution PathFinder shown users are waiting for a long.

In both cases the only chance to delay the risk is to expose it. This is what I do, as I did for RFC 3066 bis. May be will I be PR-actioned for that too?

jfc
"an Internet user on the IETF mailing lists"

At 17:57 09/10/2005, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote:

    --On mandag, oktober 03, 2005 09:53:06 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
    <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

    > JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
>> http://www.neustar.com/pressroom/files/announcements/ns_pr_09282005.pdf
    >> Comments welcome. Is it to be understood as an alt-root? or is it a
    >> legitimate hower single operator?
    >
    > Neither. .gprs appears to be a private pseudo-TLD inside a walled
    > garden for GPRS operators. It doesn't have anything to do with
    > the Internet's namespace. .3gppnetwork.org appears to be a
    > perfectly normal Internet 2LD.

    Note that I regard the GSMA board's insistence on ".gprs" as
    an incredibly stupid move.  If someone proposes to register
    ".gprs" in the global root, ICANN will have to do the same thing
    they did with ".biz" and disregard anyone operating a "toy
    domain" within their own walled garden.

    And if they choose to register ".gprs" in the global root, those
    who have depended on accessing information from the GSMA "private
    root" and the global root simultaneously will be in a world of
    pain.

    Until that happens, the only pain felt to the Internet at large
    will be from the usual leakage of private names into global
    contexts.

To illlustrate how stupid, this is the second .gprs running within
a walled garden I hear about. A couple of years ago one was running
in europe as well, next to the .umts domain. It might still be
running as far as I know.

        jaap

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]