Re: [ga] Replacements for VeriSign registry?
Karl and all former DNSO GA members or other interested stakeholders/users,
Karl Auerbach wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, DPF wrote:
> > >When you decided to cross the lower 1 year limit, did you consider to cross
> > >the upper 10 years limit? If yes what was the rationale not to do it?
> > Previously there was no flexibility at all - the lower and upper limit
> > was both one year.
> > If there was market demand for greater than ten years, I am sure the
> > policy would be reconsidered.
> In the case of the non-ccTLDs "the policy" never was "considered" at all,
> it was simply decreed.
> As I mentioned previously, there are possible reasons why someone might
> consider having shorter or longer periods to be useful ways to
> differentiate his/her product (domain name) offerings.
> The fact that there is a limitation on non-ccTLDs is indicative of how far
> ICANN has abandoned *technical* matters and moved into overt regulation of
> business practices that have no link to matters of technical stability of
> the internet.
Yes, and this has been the bent or intent from the majority of
ICANN's BoD and staff from it's beginning. Many of us here
or that have been engaged recognized this long ago. It remains
> The recently issued ICANN rules for applicants for new TLDs
> reflects the same problem - ICANN regulates only business practices and
> has abandoned ensuring that the internet is actually technically operated
> in a stable and safe way.
Also very evident and true. Again political intrigue and dictating
business practices has been ICANN's priority sense it's beginnings,
even though that is not their mandate nor should be, and certainly
should not impact in any way the insuring that the internet is operated
in a technically stable and safe way...
> I have been constantly surprised at the attitude of business intererests
> in ICANN - they, perhaps even more than the average individual, depend on
> the internet providing a stable platform for the movement of packets and
> accurate and timely resolution of DNS queries. ICANN has completely
> failed to deliver on that obligation, thus creating a risk of failure of
> business operations and e-commerce.
Some business that depend on the internet recognize this and have
for some time. Big IT companies were mostly interested in limiting
> One would think that they, more than
> anyone, would be concerned that ICANN is playing in the pansies while the
> the technical foundations of internet stability are being eroded by
> internet termites.
Yes one would think...
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801