On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Alex Gakuru <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > That said, I do not mean to support monopolies as "the one true way" > to lowest prices. I also look forward to a model that optimises on > competition at registries level without proposing that all *everyone* > becomes a registry paying $$ to ICANN. I've just been re-informed DAG > (v3) will be out before 24th Oct. Do you mean "registrar" here and not "registry"? > >> On the other hand, and something that I believe was mentioned somewhere >> but not many talk much about it, getting a name in a new gTLD has some >> painful glitches that has been experienced in the past when the new >> TLDs were introduce during the "proof of concept" days. > > Didn't know about it. Will look it up. > >> There are many applications, canned scripts, filters, etc, that rely on >> a limited number of TLDs and a quasi stable root zone with no frequent >> changes to validate fully qualified domain names. For example some >> popular scripts for processing forms on shopping carts or subscriptions >> to electronic mailing lists do not validate the address you put on the >> forms doing a dynamic query (even in some cases a dynamic query >> may not help for validation because some ISPs are tampering with the >> DNS to manipulate the responses to direct you to a web page of their >> choice), they check the address against a static table that contains >> the ccTLDs and the well known and established TLDs. > > Add censored links and the problem gets compounded. Telcos/ISPs in > such regimes may sprinkle some own private net access controls then > blame it on 'complicated' new gTLDs meanwhile. Can you give an example of this behavior? Are you talking about a SiteFinder like system? > >> When I've got my amodio.biz domain it took me a while to deal with >> all the sites that didn't recognize .BIZ as a valid TLD. >> >> So despite that there will be some confusion with the new gTLDs, >> some things will not work on day one. > > Add IPv4 exhaustion in 731 days ( see counter at > http://www.ipv6forum.com/). I think ICANN needs us more than we need > them. They should be on bended knees pleading with NCUC's Civil > Society to help them innovate on advocacy for IPv6 integration e.g. > "expanded online expression spaces", "unlimited IP address for > everyone in the world" etc. There is an ASO within ICANN that does this. I am sure that any efforts we could make would be welcome, but I doubt that anyone will go down on their knees begging us to help out in this regard. > >> In some other places people avoid the ccTLDs because of the poor >> service some ccTLD administrators provide, even if they don't charge >> a dime for it (which is a warning sign that there is always a chance >> that the ccTLD operation may become underfunded and not up to >> the task). > > ditto. And further, commencing a conversation with Randy Bush and > Michuki Mwangi on AfTLDs. > >> Going back the root scalability reports, this is a very interesting >> article that captures what is being said between the lines on the >> reports, ie we may see new gTLDs perhaps in 2012. >> http://www.internetcommerce.org/ICANN_Delaying_New_gTLD > > After getting over IPv4 exhaustion and envisaged v6 integration challenges? > >> I hope these reports (if not ignored by the board and the rest of >> the community) help to remove some of the pressure from the >> gTLD program and provide another chance to do it right. >> > Any study on the impact of proceeding with both "full-scale" vs. > internet stability? yes http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-18sep09-en.htm -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel