Subject: Re: .MOO and the new eTLDs

From: Rick Harris <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 17:48:03 -0400

Re: The New eTLDs and .MOO

FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD, not only is .MOO a good idea, it is also an
executable idea. <http;//openxrs.tucows.com> is not a joke.
It's a replica of the Idexis "inside the root zone" web
architecture, which involves the creation of so-called "equivalent"
TLDs or "eTLDs".

There are three prototype eTLDs - separate from and with no
connection whatever to .MOO. The three prototypes are .POD
(as in personal online domains), .PIN (as in personal internet
numbers) and .KIN (as in kinship information network).

What is important to understand about eTLDs is that, unlike .MOO, they
do in fact resolve inside the actual root that descends from the top of
the DNS (.) hierarchy, and, thus, eTLD registrars will not require
accreditation from ICANN to operate an eTLD and sell domain names.
What they *will* require, however,is a license.

All eTLDs allow second-level domain names to be attached to them
and, thus, the related eSLDs can be purchased and used as personal
web sites or parked as an investment, as the case may be.

The significance of eTLDs in terms of the root zone and ICANN is tested
inferentially in RFC 2826. Namely: " There is no getting away from...
[the fact that to eliminate ambiguity and therefore instability in the
DNS]" - there must be a unique and single root. (See.http://ietf.org.)
The IETF singularity variable, unlike .MOO - which is a pseudo or "mock"
TLD, is exactly on point in terms of what safeguards the legitimacy of
the Idexis eTLDs, which are the subject of numerous trademarks
filed to USPTO, including "Cyber I.D." (tm) and, in particular,
"Worldshield" (tm).

So that Tucows does not create the unwarranted inference that eTLDs
as a concept originated at Tucows - which it did not - the ersatz
.MOO is not an eTLD. On the other hand .POD .PIN and .KIN  can
legitimately be regarded as "private-label" TLDs that are outside
of ICANN governance precisely  *because* the related domain names
resolve inside the root.

A note about the eTLD experiment, which works fine, was posted to the DNS
Policy List about a month ago. Two weeks ago interested parties were
invited to query Idexis about the innovation. Interested parties were also
invited to join the "Cafe 100" investment group (of 100 persons)
which would then make a collective "bid" to ICANN for another new TLD,
in order to provide ICANN with an opportunity to avoid having to
explain from a technical standpoint how it is in the first place
that eTLD registrars do not require accreditation from ICANN
or permission from the DOC.

So that there is no misunderstanding - eTLDs "work" fine. .MOO is an
experiment from Tucows which - as I said - is executable.
To put into perspective the significance of eTLDs, the immediate market in
North America alone for legitimate eTLDs is approximately 10 million
addresses. At the moment, the plan is to lease the related eSLDs to
registrants for about $5.00 a year.
Thank you. Rick Harris

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 08:31:10 -0400

Hi Rick,

I think you may have us (CNRP WG, [email-masked])
confused with some other group.

We've nothing to do with ICANN or TLDs.  We're building a technical
spec for a standard for querying keywords on an Internet scale.

So, unless you want to speak to one of our work items, please
target your comments to an arena that _is_ dealing in your issues.

Thanks,
Leslie.
CNRP WG Chair

--

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"My body obeys Aristotelian laws of physics."
   -- ThinkingCat

Leslie Daigle
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------