[ncdnhc-discuss] Re: About Alternative Naming Scheme: (was before Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Re: Why is "Marketing ccTLDs as generics"on NC Agenda?)

[Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales]

Hi Jonathan and Dave:

The information I described in my previus e-mail I took it from New.net
home page, except for the masquerading part.

The ISP has to upgrade their networks.  What they call upgrade their
networks is simply add some lines to the a file named resolv.conf if the
ISP is using linux.

If the ISP provided of an internet user still doesn't resolv new.net
domain names, then they have to install a software or provided by
new.net.

Again, New.net (and also other companies that are doing the same as
New.net), are not Alternate Roots...because the Root they are using
actual DNS structure in order to offer TLDs.   

That New.net could be an innciative for expanding the domain name
space...maybe yes (maybe not)...but never an alternate root.

If you have read the answer I gave to Bill, the item 8 of the NC
teleconference agenda will become in "TLDs not created by ICAAN:  An
attempt to expand the domain name space or creates confusion".

Did you read the e-mail I sent today about the concerns I raised in the
NC two moths ago?

http://www.icann-ncc.org/pipermail/discuss/2001-October/000342.html

Best Regards
Vany




Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> 
> At 12:26 PM 10/4/2001 -0700, Vany Martinez wrote:
> >Jonathan:
> >I have never asked to talk about Alternate Roots.
> >Again this was another confusion from who draft the
> >agenda.
> >Let call with proper names the things:
> >1.  An Alternate Root involves a server independent
> >from the actual roots that is resolving TLDs (.TRAVEL,
> >.GAME, .KIDS, etc, for example) different than the
> >ones created by ICANN, without using any technology of
> >masquerading an existent domain name within the actual
> >existent TLDs (.COM, .ORG, etc...).
> >2. The subject I am addressing is not Alternate Roots.
> >The subject I am addresing is the launching of
> >services as New.net and other Companies that uses and
> >masquerades actual domain names inside TLDs as .ORG,
> >COM, etc...in order to provide domain names inside
> >TLDs as .TRAVEL, .GAME, .KIDS, etc... If New.net want
> >to call themselves an Alternate Root, then is a bad
> >definition because they are functioning under the
> >actual Roots, maquerading existent domain names as we
> >know them to provide new TLDs, etc...And, such TLDs
> >are not resolved by everybody...only those who has the
> >software they download or the ISP has upgraded their
> >networks by adding some lines to their DNS
> >configuration, are the ones that are able to resolve
> >such domain names.
> [snip]
> 
>          Actually, I think this misdescribes new.net.  Yes, they offer
> users a plugin that maps aaa.bbb to aaa.bbb.new.net. 
> But it doesn't appear
> that the ISPs who partner with them are using that technique; rather,
> they're simply pointing to a set of new.net alternate root servers.  See
> <http://www.new.net/help_isp_info.tp>, which indicates that an ISP can
> resolve new.net names by (among other things) replacing its root.cache file
> with one that points to the new.net root servers.  So they are using *both*
> of the two technologies you describe above.  And fwiw I think the questions
> you raise about them (relating, among other things, to the possibility of
> conflicts and the fact that the names do not universally resolve) apply no
> more strongly to them than to any other alternate root.
> 
> Jon
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss