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


       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

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.




Message Thread:

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy