On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 07:46, Jaz-Michael King wrote: > (b) one of my peeves is that all domain names cost money. TLD > namespace in my opinion is a public resource, much like the airwaves. > Just like the airwaves, it costs money to keep together, but I think > there's room for a public TLD, much like reserved frequencies for > public access radio. It would be better of course if all CC TlDs > remained free to their respective citizens, and I admit the cost of > entry is low, but still, money is money. sorta... but do we for certain want the Net run like the FCC runs airwaves in the USA? That doesn't suit my fancy. I like the idea of free ccTLDs for people... managed by your ISP with registration, maintenance costs, etc. rolled into the cost of the "advanced" ISP service, and transferable to another ISP with a small, nominal fee. Of course, this is a very decentralized model of domain name allocation... <trying to imagine how to plug the freenet project in here> > Also, where does this group stand on expanding TLDs to include > anything and everything, i.e. .bob, .car, .donkey... As a group is > iaccanatlarge.org for keeping the reins in on allowing only a select > few words approved by icann become tlds? We don't have any "official" positions as of yet, but I've noticed these camps: 1) "why do we need more than a few gTLDs since subdomains exist?" 2) "why do we need more than a few gTLDs since ccTLD subdomains exist?" 3) "gTLDs for everything!" 4) "let's have more gTLDs, some with IP/Trademark/etc.restrictions, some completely free of such consideration" I tend to fall into [3] since I find the problem set so interesting, but there is a certain element of absurdity in it. I'm against [1] because those tend to be non-transferable. Honestly, the USA has dropped the ball on the possibility of [2]... not familiar with other countries' implementations. [4] looks like a booby-trap. > Just trying to get a handle on what (if) I'm becoming part of. one of the benefits of being an early adopter is being able to define what you are a part of. Define away! :) > Also, the web site is full of broken links and various papers and quotes that cannot be distiunguished from what the org has produced over what's been taken and pasted up there. Who is responsible for the site? More iimportantly, the Charter is linked to non-existent forums, where is this Charter? I would very much like to see what it is the org is Chartered to do. Yeah... we recently changed official domain names and the old site had the forum and we got hacked and and and yeah. It sucks. -s
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part