Who are you? What do you want? -- was RE:
Dave Crocker
At 05:54 PM 4/16/98 -0400, Robert Raisch wrote:
>What I find most interesting is that no argument I have yet seen presented
>by the technocrats provides any clear technical reason why 'dot' cannot be
>opened for free market competition other than '...because it would be bad.'
There have rather more substantive responses than that, repeatedly and at
length. It's odd that you missed them.
>Each 'solution' so far presented appears to represent an ideological
>viewpoint, not a technical one.
Sorry, no. The substantive arguments pertains to operational impact and
stability of the net, therefore proposing an incremental approach. The
important source of contention is not what the upper limit is, but how
quickly new names should be added. Some believe any number of new names
should just be created all at once. Others believe that the potential for
negative scaling effects is real and serious, thereby necessitating
incremental additions, in order to monitor and limit those effects, and to
permit operational adjustments as necessary.
Oh, yes.
There is also a source of concern from the trademark community, with
respect to policing. Particularly due to the remarkably limiting policies
of NSI, trademark policing for com/net/org are somewhere between painful
and horrible. This isn't necessary, if a registry gives appropriate access
to the relevant data for policing efforts. Still, the trademark community
has now been taught to fear additional gTLDs.
d/
__________________________________________________________________________
Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting +1 408 246 8253
dcro...@brandenburg.com 675 Spruce Drive (f) +1 408 273 6464
www.brandenburg.com Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
Tony Rutkowski
>The argument is whether TLD space should be public or private. I don't
>believe anyone has ever argued that root should be private or that SLDs
A major purpose of the Dept of Commerce NPRM is to lawfully
transfer all identifier responsibilities from U.S. government
administration to a private-sector body. That includes the root.
Several private root spaces have long existed.
--tony
Tony Rutkowski
>claim public resources and administer them? That is debatable put don't
>confuse the issue of public vs private.
After it's transferred through the proceeding, there is no
public ownership. The customary DNS root that we all know and
love - and referenced by BIND - becomes owned by a private
corporation.
>And I said *the* root, not *a* root. There is only one root. Even the
>owners of these alternate roots are attempting to get their TLDs into
>*the* root, not advocated parallel roots.
Sorry....there can be and are multiple roots. You might
want to check out Bob Kahn's recent testimony to Congress
in the DNS hearing for an illuminating discussion.
--tony