As many people are aware, the "toy" IPv4 Internet is useful for doing "proof-of-concept" development of a TLD and all the needed infrastructure, prior to becoming a commercial fixture, set in bedrock on stable IPv6, IPv8 and/or IPv16 networks. As shown below, there are several companies participating in this grand experiment. I think everyone agrees that the Internet will not "crash". Multiple "roots" are no longer needed. At best they are out-dated publishers of information about TLD Nameserver Clusters. Some people apparently still find it useful to depend on a "root", as opposed to finding the "dominant" TLD Clusters via simple software. Multiple TLD Clusters are new. There is merit in having redundancy. Unfortunately, consumers will have to learn through their registrar or registry, that they would be prudent to register in BOTH TLD Cluster for the most reliable, stable service, with the widest reach. The SLD.TLD cluster is of course usually unique. How an end user's resolver locates the SLD.TLD Cluster does not impact the end-users's resolver interaction with the SLD.TLD Cluster. In this grand "proof-of-concept" experiment, it appears that the TLDs, .SHOP, .TRAVEL, .FREE and possibly .INFO may be the landmark TLDs which test the notion of multiple TLD Clusters. There do not appear to be hundreds in this class, as many people claimed there would be. For some users, it might be more desirable to use the multiple TLD Cluster approach to ensure more stability. In the future, the .COM TLD will also likely become structured this way, in order to ensure that the underlying registry can be changed, by turning off the old one and allowing traffic to be handled by the new .COM TLD Cluster. If that does not occur, the claim will always be made that the incumbent registry can not be changed. People want registries to be changed, without impacting service. It will be interesting to see how this grand "proof-of-concept" experiment evolves on the legacy IPv4 Internet. If multiple TLD Clusters prove to be useful, more desirable, more stable, etc. I would think all engineers would recommend them for future Internet architectures. The IETF seems to be silent about Multiple TLD Clusters. Jim Fleming http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp ------------- Dominant Proof-of-Concept Participants http://www.name-space.com http://www.icann.org/tlds/ads1/NameSpace-gtld-appBP.html (* first 20 TLDs) .SHOP <<<<< .SPACE .SEX .ART .ZONE .MUSIC .ONLINE .CONSULTING .DESIGN .TRAVEL <<<<< .MEDIA .NEWS .DIRECT .MAIL .WORLD .MAG .AUCTION .FREE <<<<< .CAM .SERVICE ----------------------- http://www.New.Net .SHOP <<<<< .MP3 .INC .KIDS .SPORT .FAMILY .CHAT .VIDEO .CLUB .HOLA .SOC .MED .LAW .TRAVEL <<<<< .GAME .FREE <<<< .LTD .GMBH .TECH .XXX ---------------------- ISOC/ICANN http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg02817.html http://www.icann.org/tlds/ .FIRM .STORE .WEB .ARTS .REC .INFO <<<< .NOM .AERO .BIZ .COOP .INFO <<<< .MUSEUM .NAME .PRO _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ --------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Len Lindon [mailto:info§humanrights.com.au] Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 5:43 PM To: dns§auda.org.au Subject: Re: [DNS] Submissions to Competition Panel 1. Have you had any offlist response? 2. I have reread this several times. It would not be a waste of your time to explain this further (starting from simple). You are, as you know, onto something quite significant here. 3. Apparently one Dave Keegal is the person responsible for aunic and is expected to reply to you after the public holiday here today. 4. I have also reread several times your Multiple TLD Cluster post to dnso which Patrick Corliss forwarded to me. Do you suppose you could also do a further explanation (starting from simple). It may be that you have already posted something already that I can just read but I couldnt find anything. > From: "JIM FLEMING" <JimFleming§prodigy.net> > Reply-To: dns§auda.org.au > Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:45:33 -0500 > To: <dns§auda.org.au> > Subject: RE: [DNS] Submissions to Competition Panel > Resent-From: dns§auda.org.au > Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:44:39 +0800 > > > With all due respect, why would people waste their time ? > Until someone puts together the needed servers, networks, > operations, etc. to allow them to FREELY register under .AU > then there is not much to say. > > Also, with new TLDs entering the IPv4 "proof-of-concept > phase all around the world, the market demand for .AU may > go down. It may go to zero if it is not opened up. People > have lives and have no time to deal with control freaks. > Look at the situation with .US, it still has not recovered > from the years of restrictions. They can hardly give it > away at this point. In a day or two, .US will be put on the > block one more time. > > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/domainhome.htm > "May 30, 2001: A notice of intent to issue a Request for Quotations (RFQ) > for management and coordination of the usTLD appears in Commerce Business > Daily. The RFQ will be issued on June 11." > > > TLDs are not like gold or oil. They are becoming a dime a dozen. > Companies are finding they need 10 or 20 of them to make a viable > business. Maybe one of the reasons .AU has never been opened up > is because people are afraid there will not be any demand. If .AU > is not opened up, then it will drift further from the end users. > It has already been removed from the prime 2,048 IPv8 slots. It > will likely drift off into IPv16 cyberspace where people can debate > these topics for a few more years. In the meantime, others are > more interested in fun new TLDs **. > > > Jim Fleming > http://www.DOT-NZ.com ** > http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif > http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif > http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt > http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Keegel [mailto:djk§cyber.com.au] > Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 3:20 AM > To: dns§auda.org.au > Subject: [DNS] Submissions to Competition Panel > > > I'm surprised that June 9 has come and gone, and there is only one > submission posted for the second round of comments at > http://www.auda.org.au/panel/competition/submissions.html > > I was hoping to read a few other submissions (or even better, some > discussion on lists like this) before deciding whether to put in a > submission myself, and if so what to say/emphasize. > > In the past*, auDA seems to have posted the comments submitted late > (after the nominated closing date). But there is no assurance that > submissions received after the closing date will be read by the > relevant Panel at its next meeting (which would of course limit > the submission's usefulness). > > (*) Past performance is no guarantee of future results. > > So if you have something to say about competition in .au, please > write something and submit it for the panel!! Hopefully there may > still be time for submissions received in the next couple of days > to be considered by the competition panel at their next meeting > (depending on when that is). > > I'm also surprised that no one seems to have commented on a new > position in the second report: > > 4.3.3 ... in the implementation strategy detailed in section 5 > of this report, the Panel recommends that auDA tender all the > existing open 2LDs (including asn.au, com.au, id.au, info.au, > net.au and org.au) to a single registry operator. > > Of course you should read the Panel's Report to put this in context, > especially if you are writing a submission to the Panel. > > The Name Panel and Dispute Resolution Working Group also have papers > available for public comment (also notionally closing on June 9). > > __________________________________________________________________________ > David Keegel <david§keegel.wattle.id.au> I speak for myself, no one else. > > -- > This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without > express permission of the author. 371 subscribers. > Archived at http://listmaster.iinet.net.au/list/dns (user: dns, pass: dns) > Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request§auda.org.au to be removed. > > -- > This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without > express permission of the author. 371 subscribers. > Archived at http://listmaster.iinet.net.au/list/dns (user: dns, pass: dns) > Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request§auda.org.au to be removed. > -- This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without express permission of the author. 371 subscribers. Archived at http://listmaster.iinet.net.au/list/dns (user: dns, pass: dns) Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request§auda.org.au to be removed.Received on Mon Jun 11 2001 - 08:10:27 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:04 UTC
