[IDN-WG] [At-Large] The New gTLD Progam in CLASS IN is no more a swindle
jmamodio at gmail.com
Thu Jan 12 05:17:33 UTC 2012
By any chance are you a relative of Jeffrey Williams ?
On Jan 11, 2012, at 9:32 AM, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
> The ICANN procedures are cute. They are not that easy to understand,
> follow and eventually comply with. However, they, from time to time,
> ultimately permit some transparency in order to show that it was
> possible not to pay ICANN for something small when you can get
> "samething" big for free (but without the ICANN legaleses).
> In the New gTLD Program case, I made an effort to try to save ICANN
> millions. You will find it at the URL
> I hope this demonstrate enough that ICANN and the US Governments are
> not crooks:
> - they only did not "underline" the full truth, as every good sales,
> at it results from the small prints
> - however, and I am the proof, they made nothing to prevent the truth
> from being published before the gTLD candidates send their requests
> and checks.
> The truth is that:
> 1. there is no technical difference between gTLDs and IDNgTLDs except
> non contractual foreign software application (punycode family of
> alogithms) TLD registrant cannot control.
> 2. ICANN uses a "de facto" situation to register TLDs that can be "de
> jure" (RFCs) replicated in 65,535 other DNS top level registries.
> 3. TLDs may use protected IRNs (International Root Names) by WIPO or
> ISO. The use of a string as a TLD does not protect it as an IRN.
> 4. ICANN stays at the IETF Internet end to end layers under the
> ignorance of the US Government. This is obsolete: IETF RFCs have
> already transparently made inteligent users to scale to fringe to
> fringe Internet+. http://iutf.org/wiki/Internet%2B_architectural_Framework.
> This makes clear that the ICANN Pew gTLD Program brings to its gTLD
> registrants is a very worked-out screen of paper to sign and an entry
> in the DNS CLASS "IN" (ICANN/NTIA) every of us can replicate,
> - in full right: in 255 other CLASSes
> - at least in test: in 65.375 other ones.
> If this was plainly stated in the Agreement, this would be perfectly
> honnest. As it is not, Courts may have to decide.
> However, in favor of ICANN:
> 1. my mail was published by ICANN within the Pew gTLD Program
> dedicated part, on a public forumeveryone could read.
> 2. RFC are publicly published and TLD would be Managers should know
> them to correctly operates the service they plan to sell. After
> several RFCs over the last 29 years of DNS operations, RFC 5395 states
> anew: "DNS CLASSes have been little used but constitute another
> dimension of the DNS distributed database. In particular, there is no
> necessary relationship between the name space or root servers for one
> data CLASS and those for another data CLASS. The same DNS NAME can
> have completely different meanings in different CLASSes. The label
> types are the same, and the null label is usable only as root in every
> CLASS. As global networking and DNS have evolved, the IN, or Internet,
> CLASS has dominated DNS use.  The current CLASS assignments  are
> as follows:
> This simply means that for each ".abcd" top-zone IDNgTLD paid K$ 185++
> to ICANN, there can be 65,535 other ".abcd" top-zones in the DNS. Some
> will be immediatel because the IUTF is going to accept a few CLASSes
> for family protection, customer documentation, testing of third party
> applications, etc.
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
More information about the IDN-WG