Re: [ga] ALAC statement on resolution of non-existing domain name s
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 04:44:39 +0800, Jim Ayson <jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
>
>Vittorio,
>
>Does the ALAC statement also cover the ccTLDs that have been redirecting
>non-existing domain names or is limited to the Verisign situation?
>
>As stated previously, the .PH registry has been practicing this for some
>time, but there hasn't been any complaint from the ALAC.
>
>According to a post on the AU DNS list, other registries doing this include
>ac, cc, cx, mp, nu, pw, sh, tk, tm, ws, and .museum.
While our statement is limited to the specific issue of .com and .net,
of course the same principle may apply generally; in fact, if you have
a look at our list archives, you will see that the first draft of our
statement was prepared during the .biz test, though at that time we
decided not to release an official statement yet, but rather to
express our concerns informally.
However, I think that you should examine things separately for each
TLD; for example, binding policy on ccTLDs is not ICANN's business,
even if ICANN should encourage everyone to follow global best
practices; and even if I think that wildcards should be generally
forbidden at the TLD level, employing them since the beginning on a
small new sponsored TLD such as .museum is different than applying
them suddenly and without notice to the oldest TLDs.
Finally, I do not understand the argument that since some smaller TLDs
were already using wildcards, then using wildcards should be
automatically right or allowed to everyone. The fact that someone else
once broke the speed limits by 5 km/h on a deserted highway and no one
complained does not entitle you to do the same, or worse, to drive at
200 km/h in front of a school.
--
vb. [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
-------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------