[ncdnhc-discuss] Why is "Marketing ccTLDs as generics" on NC Agenda?

[Jefsey Morfin]

Dear Vany and all,

IRT Vany's remark:
>As you may know, there are some companies that are
>marketing TLDs as .TRAVEL, . GAMES, .KIDS, etc, and
>what they really do is to masquerade an actual domain
>in order to resolve domains under such TLDs.  This
>means that only the users that has the proper software
>or the users under an ISP that has setted up their
>networks to resolve such domain names, will be able to
>resolve such names.

I would recommend that before discussing the matter we help you with some 
more information. The matter is controverted and an NC / NCDNHC ignorance 
will be much more criticized than silence.

1. Vany is talking about New.net. The system she describes is a marketing 
ploy I disagree with but which is not basically different from what you do 
every day when you do not type  http:// on your browser. Or what Real Name 
and XTNSC do. Most of the New.net calls resolve as any other .com calls. 
Please read New.net documents, ask Patrick Greenwell, connect a New.net site.

2. The proper software necessary to access New.net as every other non ICANN 
TLD is the same as for ICANN TLD. Netscape, Opera, IE under Windows etc. 
The only change is to unlock the Window Internet access to make it similar 
to Unix, Linux etc. in introducing the IP address of one or several open 
roots server instead of the nil default.

3. I note that if the ccTLDs start operating national roots as a much 
necessary protection solution against terrorism, the unlocking above will 
be the usual way to manage an Internet machine.

4. The root and its management are the single point of failure of the 
Internet. Its reduction calls for the suppression of the root servers. This 
will most probably be the solution adopted by most if XP permits it easily 
- as does NT. Otherwise we will have to wait for private Java value added 
resolvers. The packed public root file is 14,655 bytes today and usually 
need to be updated on your machine every other month.

5. The remark of Vany about ".ngo" is of interest. This rises the question 
of the discrimination among Internet users on access. Would that mean that 
a domestic VietNameese association could not be a Member of the NoComm 
because its site is not accessible from he International view of ".vn" or 
that another could not be a Member because their site is down or under UDRP?

Jefsey