Dear Jaap,
Full agreement, but this does not address my concern.
I fully understand that Internet designers tell what "should" be. As
trying to use the Internet solutions in continuity with others
management tools of the common digital ecosystem, I am more
interested in what "can" be. And how to practically protect stability
and to address my needs.
The real concern is a PathFinder II. The users shown they liked
PathFinder. If NeuStar introduces it on mobiles, to pay for its
service, it will quickly leak. Two lines more in the loading script
of the already disputed NTIA root file. In addition to the Chinese
TLDs may already add. Whatever the size of a pollution, if the users
like it, it will become a service easily documented by "how to make
your PC compatible with your Mobile" every where.
- either the IETF stays dogmatic about it and we run into the risk
that the DNS root governance is no more an ICANN/UN contest.
- or the IETF can propose the innovative solution PathFinder shown
users are waiting for a long.
In both cases the only chance to delay the risk is to expose it. This
is what I do, as I did for RFC 3066 bis. May be will I be PR-actioned
for that too?
jfc
"an Internet user on the IETF mailing lists"
At 17:57 09/10/2005, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote:
--On mandag, oktober 03, 2005 09:53:06 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> wrote:
> JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
>>
http://www.neustar.com/pressroom/files/announcements/ns_pr_09282005.pdf
>> Comments welcome. Is it to be understood as an alt-root? or is it a
>> legitimate hower single operator?
>
> Neither. .gprs appears to be a private pseudo-TLD inside a walled
> garden for GPRS operators. It doesn't have anything to do with
> the Internet's namespace. .3gppnetwork.org appears to be a
> perfectly normal Internet 2LD.
Note that I regard the GSMA board's insistence on ".gprs" as
an incredibly stupid move. If someone proposes to register
".gprs" in the global root, ICANN will have to do the same thing
they did with ".biz" and disregard anyone operating a "toy
domain" within their own walled garden.
And if they choose to register ".gprs" in the global root, those
who have depended on accessing information from the GSMA "private
root" and the global root simultaneously will be in a world of
pain.
Until that happens, the only pain felt to the Internet at large
will be from the usual leakage of private names into global
contexts.
To illlustrate how stupid, this is the second .gprs running within
a walled garden I hear about. A couple of years ago one was running
in europe as well, next to the .umts domain. It might still be
running as far as I know.
jaap
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf