Re: [Ietf] New .mobi, .xxx, ... TLDs?

At 23:49 22/04/04, Dean Anderson wrote:
> Is it sensible to think of tel and mobi as business functions?
Absolutely yes. As I noted it, there are at least two possiblities:
- .tel is accepted as the TLD of the ITU-T Sector's members. The same as 
for .aero. And .mobi is for all the companies, services, designers 
interested in mobile product, services etc.
- .tel is reserved to a class of users froming an "externet", ie. a class 
of users with special relations/access terms. This can be an economical 
model (rates), this can be a way of behaving (accepting or not VoSpam), 
etc. This however calls for a large number of new architectural concepts 
and naming semantic to be discussed and agreed upon.
But in both cases, it is likely it would then be premature to give away 
such mnemonics as "tel" and "mobi" before a wide debate. ITU expressed that 
in their letter of 2000 to ICANN. ICANN was wise to agree. I think not much 
has changed.
But would remain the IDNA aspect (LHS is not solved yet!),  the 
co-registry/virtual zone need to address the support of an _existing_ and 
generalized non Internet industry, and the real life feed-back. Do you 
really think non-US Govs, ITU, users, etc. will take ICANN and IETF 
seriously if they give away a $ 6 yearly tax on 1.3 billion mobiles and 
more telephone sets, managed by State controlled corporations or 
monopolies, to a single private US interest? If the root was the "joke of 
the XXth century" (European Gov top expet's comment), this would be the 
joke of the XXIth century.
The slippery slope is the risk that ICANN tries (or is put under pressures 
to try) that "coup" for political/commercial reasons. I think IETF is here 
to say where are the technical problems to prevent that temptation.
Another point, I did not rise, is that ".tel" and ".mobi" would obviously 
immediately lead to propositions such as ".tel1", ".mob1", ".phone", etc. 
etc. The size of the existing market and its technical sophistication would 
certainly push imaginations a lot and things IAB did not consider for 20 
years would be implemented in chaos in months. There would be scores of 
New.nets.
Just consider that ".sms" is the golden mine of today and is LOCAL. Any ISP 
alliance can start it today and build an externet (open virtual netwok) 
using ULDs (User level domains made of the alias couple of an SLD and of a 
local TLD) that will work very well.
IAB has not published an architecture for the internetting and ICANN has 
contained the number of TLDs. This has not permitted the world to get a 
technical reference nor to establish commonly agreed best practices. 
Nevertheless common sense remains until this may be corrected within the 
global convergence/stabilization of the digital continuity.
jfc


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf