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

Hi Folks,
 OK, I'll bite.
(i)   Have all of the folks commenting actually read these proposals 
all the way through (plus RFCs
      2916 and 2806, along with the drafts RFC2806bis, and RFC2916bis 
that will replace them)?
      Some of the earlier examples in this thread make me wonder.
      Note that by proposals, I mean .tel-Pulver *and* .tel-Telnic 
(they're wildly different),
      as well as the .mobi proposal. AFAICT, Pulver/NetNumber seem to 
be proposing a competitor
      to .e164.arpa, whilst Telnic are suggesting a name-based (i.e. 
phone numbers banned) registry
      to hold telecomms contact data. (I leave it as an exercise for 
the *Advanced* student to work
      out exactly what mobi-JV are proposing :)
(ii)  After the painful/protracted discussions that led to ENUM using 
.e164.arpa., the idea
      that we throw all of that away and start again with .tel (or any 
other TLD) is a BAD idea, IMHO.
(iii) The ITU is a UN organisation, and already has .int, so I'm not 
sure that there's an obvious
      justification for making yet another TLD available to them (quite 
apart from the organisational
      issues they have with actually registering any domains under the 
existing .int TLD).
(iv)  Regarding what mnemonics are used, and the ITU liaison to ICANN, 
it's illuminating to consider
      what was going on when the statement was sent to ICANN in 2000; 
the ITU had not at that point
      made any decision on how it was going to handle Internet use of 
telephone numbers, so this was
      a request for a block on anything that might interfere with that 
process. It's now 2004, and
      this process seems to be completing - we pretty much know what 
interferes and what doesn't.
      This, however, is a point for the IAB and the ITU.

all the best,
  Lawrence

On 23 Apr 2004, at 11:33 am, jfcm wrote:
> 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.
> <snip>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf