Re: [DNS] .au space proposal

Re: [DNS] .au space proposal

From: Deus Ex Machina <vicc§>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 11:26:48 +1100
Ron Ipsen [ron&#167;] wrote:
> Whilst it may be easier to consider geographic names as a saleable asset I 
> cannot forsee any real public good coming from their sale.

why would that be? I think you are confused as to the asset nature
of the dns.  dns is not a public asset anymore then softdrinks are.
dns could just as quickly become obsolete if a new naming protocol where
to be introduced tomorow that is not country based. 

the sole value of a dns entry is the value someone is prepare
to pay to licence it.  its relation to a particular country is arbitrary.
look at .tv .nu and .to  these are mainly used for sematic value.

I own is this domain a public asset of china or is it a public
asset of namibia? 

>   I am in no way in favor of the geographic names being issued for the 
> exclusive right of any private enterprise, they are indeed IMHO a public 
> asset and should be administered by the appropriate body.

I think you are deeply confused. what makes geographic names a public asset?
who should own this "asset"? the government? the  local comunity thus named?
I think the government should be kept well away from dns and the internet
from its past history.

do you think the public should own all geographic names inside .au 
I own  should the public own 

>   basically it is whatever&#167; with mail administrated by a 
> body like the post office and a "dont publish" paradigm utilised for the web.
> and yes, its a directory and has the mandatory web catalogue
> Once again I cannot for the life of think of a "commercial" body that i 
> would trust with such an asset. Publicly administration of an intuitive and 
> consistent system would be the only way that I could see it operating fairly.
> We have been trailing geographic domain name systems for 3 years in 
> Gippsland and this is what we have learnt.

this has nothing whatsoever to do with limiting geographic names inside or  I certainly would not object if was reserved and a full
geographical hierarchy setup. I think something similar exists under .US
but it doesnt seem to get much use as the names become ridiculously long.
eitherway it would just open up more name spaces that people
may or may not choose to use.  more choice is good.

Received on Thu Nov 23 2000 - 08:26:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:04 UTC