Discuss mailing list

[Alejandro Bonet <albogoal AT gmail.com>]

Guillaume, Quinn:

No matter if you dont like me: Im not your enemy and i dont want to be that...

Im only pourposing a new tld and a new currency.
Both based on my work (and some others work) and both honest as far as
i can see.

If you need an "enemy of democracy" you could think on centralized 
"authorities"
like ICANN, FED, ECB, IMF, etc...

See this:

http://www.newgtldsite.com/new-gtld-list/

This is precisely what i name "A clear dictionary abuse".

Slow but abuse. Constant in time...
Each year, a little bit more abusive...

IMHO each person or group setting up a public DNS server resolving ALL 
domains,
has the right to run his own TLD. And the rest of us must support that.

And avoid the same owner of the same servers abusing on dictionary.

This is what i understood the first time i enter opennicproject.org...
(And remember: I didnt vote anything, because i enter some months ago
for first time...)

...

At today, http://ausregistry.com.au has four dns servers:

ari.alpha.aridns.net.au
ari.beta.aridns.net.au
ari.gamma.aridns.net.au
ari.delta.aridns.net.au

But they control about 70 TLDs from the 400 (more or less) we are
resolving to the people...

.academy, .agency, .bike, .builders, .cab, .camera, .camp, .careers,
.center, .cheap,
.clothing, .codes, .coffee, .company, .computer, .construction, .contractors,
.dance, .democrat...

And so on...

But perhaps you dont valorize (assess) too much the effort to set up
and mantain stable a public dns server for the free internet... The
internet you and me believe.

IMHO it is a good thing for the whole internet and democracy, and must
be valorized as it is.

Have you 10 public dns servers?... Well, then you have right to run 10 TLDs...

(Of course if you dont create conflicts, and you have public
registries for them).

"Hey!... Then if i supply one million servers online i have right to
one million TLDs?"

Well: The answer is "can you set up that?... Then perhaps you have
that right..."

But this depends on what names, of course, because Google Inc, perhaps
can do it...

Perhaps some tlds must be PROHIBITED BY NETIQUETTE...
(Like some trademarks in some countries)...

I dont know!!

But i only have a clear idea: Dictionary abuses are good for nobody,
except the abusators, no matter how slow and constant is the abuse.
And we must denounce that, and try to elevate
that to the public debate by all means we could get.

And you can be sure: Many BIG AND POWERFUL companies will agree
against dictionary abuses on internet tlds. From TV stations and big
newspapers to Google or Yahoo or Twitter.
And if they dont, perhaps "they are also the enemy"...

The rule could be like "You have TLDs rights as you supply DNS public
servers"...

And The Opennic Community clearly fit (more or less) on this rule.
But perhaps ICANN and others dont.

Of course, they have "The Money"...


If we permit dictionary abuses on TLDs, you can be sure in some months
all internet namespaces will be monopolized by Mr. Burns and Mr.
Waylon Smithers...

Best regards and good food!!

Alejandro Bonet
albogoal AT gmail.com

PD: "You only realize you are a slave when you move and hear the sound
of your own chains..."

PD2: If we can establish a biyection between tlds and public dns
servers ipv4 addresess,
ONE FOR ONE, all will flow good for all of us, and probably we will
avoid dictionary abuses on tlds...

(I hope...)

Note this biyection is not communicational or technical: Is a way to
understand rights to run tlds,
and a way to simplify and automate collective decissions...

(But i dont have all the answers and i dont know everything...)


2014/1/20, Quinn Wood <wood.quinn.s AT gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:17 PM, Guillaume Parent <gparent AT gparent.org>
> wrote:
>> For what it's worth, Quinn isn't speaking for the whole community, but
>> he's
>> part of it so maybe you should respect his opinion because you'll find
>> that
>> a whole lot of us think exactly like him on some points.
>>
> I have a tendency to be overly loud, but even when I'm rude it's VERY
> rarely personal, and never permanent.
>