Why would you expect ICANN's rules to be less opaque and arbitrary than Verisign's?
Not challenging any aspect of arbitrary that you're making. It seems to be that it is the layering of them creating an additional arbitrary break point at each that seems at issue. In this case of gb.com, there are more than one layer introduced by sub-domaining. There is an agreement between ICANN and VeriSign for .com, one between VeriSign for .com and the registrar of record of gb.com, one between ICANN and the registrar of record of gb.com, and one between the registrar of record of gb.com and the registrant of gb.com. Then you layer on the agreement where the provider of the subdomaining service (in this case Centralnic - who are stellar professionals IMHO) contracts with the registrant of gb.com, and then Centralnic contracts with the registrant of subdomain.gb.com, possibly having a registrar and perhaps even a reseller in betwixt. That's a lot of layers and a lot of arbitrary points. -Jothan On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 2:07 PM, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
Wold seem to be a good argument for new TLDs - at least one doesn't stand the risk of abitrary re-delegation..
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------