Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

[Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com>]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Owen DeLong" <owen () delong com>

> apple.com is a delegation from .com just as apple is a delegation from
> .
>  
> > apple. and www.apple. are *not* -- and the root operators may throw
> > their hands up in the air if anyone asks them to have anything in
> > their
> > zone except glue -- rightly, I think; it's not a degree of
> > complexity
> > that's compatible with the required stability of the root zone.
>
> Sir, either you are very confused, or, I am. I am saying that TLDs
> behave with the same delegation rules as SLDs, which I believe
> to be correct. You are claiming that TLDs are in some way magical
> and that the ability to delegate begins at SLDs. I think the fact that
> there is data in the COM zone separate from the root indicates that
> I am correct.

I could be wrong--Cricket Liu I am not--but the point I'm trying to make
is that the record "apple." does not *live* inside the zone server for 
the "apple" TLD; it lives in ".".

The people who operate the "apple" zone can apply an A record to "www.apple"...

Oh.  Wait.

I'm sorry: you're right.  It's been so long since I climbed that far 
up the tree, I'd forgotten, the TLDs don't *live* in the root servers.

So people operating a cTLD like "apple." would have to run their
own analog of gtld-servers.net, to which the zone would be delegated,
and such fanciness could happen there.  

Ok; so *this* bit of opposition was a red herring.  :-)

Cheers,
-- jr '<litella>' a
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       jra () baylink com
Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates     http://baylink.pitas.com         2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA      http://photo.imageinc.us             +1 727 647 1274