Your statement is not quite correct, David

Return to Unique Root for DNS Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: friedrich

Date/Time: Sun, June 3, 2001 at 7:17 AM GMT

Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.5 using Windows NT 4.0

Score: 5

Subject: Your statement is not quite correct, David

Message:

Your statement is not quite correct, David.
ICANN could of course introduce new gtlds which are already in use
with an alternate root.
In this case ICANN should sign a contract with that alternate root
service provider, similar to the one Verisign just signed. This means
that the existing database would be taken over and NOT duplicated or
even deleted.
If the respective alternate registry would refuse to sign a
reasonable contract, it would have to turn off its registry functions
and (for the sake of stability) be only allowed to keep its registrar
functions.
In case it signed the contract, it would have to agree to a
transition period and a separation between its registry and registrar
functions like in the case of VeriSign (see VeriSigns recently signed
contract with ICANN).
What is the advantage of clearing or duplicating an existing database?
None, except that other people/companies/speculators will get what earlier people/companies/speculators had obtained beforehand.
So again ICANN made a serious mistake duplicating dot biz.
There would have been far better solutions available.
The confusion ICANN willfully (?) created may lead to a total stop of
introduction of any new gtld into the legacy root.
Is it that, what ICANN is aiming at?
At least ICANNs policy of confrontation is totally unnecessary and
may only serve selected business interests, but certainly not the
global public.
Regards,
Friedrich

Message Thread:

Alternative Roots and the Virtual Inclusive Root by S. Higgs — Alternative Roots, June 2, 2001 @ 11:56 PM (4/22)

If ICANN accredits alt. root servers, all current alt. root TLD holders will become RICH instantly! — InternetAdvocate, June 4, 2001 @ 10:47 PM (0/0)
"Alternate Roots" poster=Slicer_=_Slicer (unfunny mocker of Slicer) — InternetAdvocate, June 4, 2001 @ 10:29 PM (0/0)
Here, here. — Elvis, June 3, 2001 @ 5:47 PM (0/0)
The same old faulty logic — Slicer, June 3, 2001 @ 12:55 AM (2/18)

Your statement is not quite correct, David — friedrich, June 3, 2001 @ 7:17 AM (1/13)

Why an alt-root/ICANN agreement wouldn't happen. — Slicer, June 3, 2001 @ 9:01 AM (2/12)

Nonsense — afterhours, June 7, 2001 @ 12:37 AM (0/0)
I suspect that ICANN simply doesn't want it to happen. — friedrich, June 3, 2001 @ 1:03 PM (2/10)

And they'll want it even less after they think about it. — Slicer, June 3, 2001 @ 7:44 PM (2/8)

You should really research before you speak — jandl, June 8, 2001 @ 5:56 AM (1/3)

I simply can't understand why ICANN didn't make a contract with PacificRoot to have them run dot biz — friedrich, June 8, 2001 @ 7:48 AM (2/2)

Why would we want to be controlled by ICANN? — jandl, June 15, 2001 @ 6:30 AM (0/0)
Atlantic Root is alt root .biz registry? — InternetAdvocate, June 14, 2001 @ 11:24 PM (0/0)

Your opinion is mainstream, but totally wrong. — friedrich, June 3, 2001 @ 9:22 PM (2/3)

Well said sir. — Elvis, June 4, 2001 @ 12:04 AM (0/0)
What kind of bullshit..? — Slicer, June 3, 2001 @ 10:49 PM (1/1)

Your lack of answers speaks for itself ... — friedrich, June 3, 2001 @ 11:10 PM (0/0)

First let me state that I consider it a lack of character to enter an alias to hide behind. Good! — _Slicer, June 3, 2001 @ 5:08 PM (0/0)

Take it from me, Slicer, the same old faulty turd. Ooops. Just a little gas. Don't worry. — _Slicer, June 3, 2001 @ 7:09 AM (1/3)

please ... — friedrich, June 3, 2001 @ 7:20 AM (1/2)

Yes, Friedrich. Slicer, David, whatever he is, posts very helpful comments. — _Slicer, June 3, 2001 @ 7:35 AM (1/1)

Slicer stop flooding — Elvis, June 3, 2001 @ 8:03 PM (0/0)

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy