nanog mailing list archives
Re: what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Box of new TLDs)
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer () nic fr>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:02:48 +0200
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:24:48AM -0700, Scott Francis <darkuncle () gmail com> wrote a message of 32 lines which said:
what problem is ICANN trying to solve with this proposal? What about the current system that's broken, does this new system fix?
ICANN is simply responding to demand. Some people want to create a TLD. The existence of a TLD is not a problem for the other TLDs. If the new TLD is stupid or useless (like ".aero" or ".pro"), it will fail. So what? That's the normal life of projects. Why ICANN should evaluate the new TLD applications, apart from some simple technical checks? If something is wanted and causes no harm for the others, then why in hell ICANN should refuse it? I did not suspect that the idea of central regulation of business, with a state-like committee examining business ideas and allowing them or not, was an idea so popular among Nanog members :-)
Current thread:
- Re: what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora'sBox, (continued)
- Re: what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora'sBox Joe Greco (Jun 30)
- Re: what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora'sBox of Jay R. Ashworth (Jun 30)
- Re: what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora'sBox of Joe Abley (Jun 29)
- DNS and potential energy bmanning (Jun 29)
- Re: DNS and potential energy Rob Pickering (Jun 30)
- Re: DNS and potential energy James Hess (Jun 30)
- Re: DNS and potential energy Tony Finch (Jun 30)
- RE: DNS and potential energy Martin Hannigan (Jun 30)
- Re: what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora's Joe Greco (Jun 30)