Discuss mailing list

[Hospedaje Web y Servidores Dedicados <ventas AT dedicados.com.mx>]

it looks my open thread is causing some stomachaches to some people, no 
prob, if dont want to see them.

but just to let you know. cesidianroot dns servers resolves opennic 
domains too, except .free because they have .free too.

Ing. Alejandro M.
Hospedaje Web y Servidores Dedicados
http://www.dedicados.com.mx
------
correo / msn: ventas AT dedicados.com.mx
skype: dedicados
------

El 16/03/2012 03:57 p.m., Richard Lyons escribió:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 07:16:46 -0500, Brian Koontz wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 11:07:41AM +0000, Richard Lyons wrote:
> > > Seems to me what is needed is a united open database of tlds in which a
> > > tld can only bcome active when signed off by, say, 75% of collaborating
> > > NICs.  They would have to appoint a representative with signing rights.
> > > The only common policies needed would be arrangements to prevent
> > > squatting.  Having a majority rather than a unanimous vote would
> > > probably avoid spoiling behaviour (by which I mean one NIC arbitrarily
> > > blocking the tlds of another).  The open database could be mirrored by
> > > servers nominated by each participating NIC, using some kind of
> > > distributed management script, I guess.
> > There are altroots whose aims are incompatible with OpenNIC (for
> > instance, new.net has some rather draconian policies).  Other altroots
> > we have tried to work with in the past, but have not been successful.
> >
> > It's simply not as easy as you posit, because the altroots all have
> > different aims.  And I certainly don't believe that OpenNIC's gTLDs
> > should be approved or disapproved by a group with members whose goals
> > are different from those of OpenNIC.
> I don't see why their goals matter.  All that is needed is a means to
> avoid clashes.
>
> > I'm all for dialog.  I wish someone would contact new-nations.com and
> > set up a peering agreement with them...it looks like they're giving a
> > voice to people who currently don't have a voice on the Internet.  I
> > would do it, but I don't have the time ATM.
> >
> > But having OpenNIC fall under an umbrella organization that has the
> > ability to dictate how OpenNIC operates?  That's rather distasteful to
> > me.
> No altNIC need be "under" anything -- I suggested collaboration between
> equals, as opposed to rule by a controlling hierarchy.  I see no need
> for anyone to dictate to anybody.  But making it possible for altNICs to
> resolve each other in the security that no clashes will result would
> strengthen the whole concept of openness and make it clear just why we
> do _not_ need a top-down internet.
>
> Richard