Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

Leah you brought out some real issues. I think some of them should be
painted differently than you portrayed, and my spin on them is below.

Todd

----- Original Message -----
From: "L. Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)


>
>
> On 8 Aug 2002, at 10:11, Don Brown wrote:
>
> > Competition, innovation, progress, no monopoly and lower registration
> > costs for consumers, to name a few . . .
>
> If there were thousands of TLDs, or even hundreds, the monopoly issue
> would be put to rest.  The market would take care of pricing.

Same is true of operating multiple root sets.

>  In the
> case of VRSG, it is an issue simply because it was the only game in
> town for so long that every commercial enterprise was forced to register
> in that registry, providing a scenario where it was easy to gauge
> consumers.  Adding "registrars" to the mix forced price reductions, yes.
>  However, it is still a monopoly in the sense that VRSG still fixes the
> registry fee.
>
> Had there been a hundred gTLDs added early on, consumers would
> have been registering in many regsitries and NSI would have had to
> compete in a fair market.  Every registry is a monoply, but that is no
> different from every insurance company being a monopoly.  If you don't
> like the practices, terms and conditions or policies of one company,
> choose another.
>
> A great many of the issues driving people crazy today could go away
> with hundreds of TLDs being made available in the USG root.  I doubt
> we will see it because the IP interests will do all they can to prevent
it.

I dont think anyone really (commercially speaking) wants billions of TLD's;
only people in these types of forums are pro millions and billions of
TLD's - The real issue is making namespace as easy to remember as possible
and that isnt with adding yet another TLD. It would be much simplier to add
another root and replicate .com, .net, and .org and restructure how the
address space is split up amoungst the Registries and their Registrar
front-ends.

>
> There is nothing wrong with having a single registrar for a regsitry if
there
> are many registries - small, large and in-between.  As with the problems
> surrounding ICANN's elimination of the at-large, the artificial scarcity
of
> TLDs prevents the public's having a choice in the most basic areas of
> the internet - the DNS.

The same is true of a multi-root scenario as well.

>
> All the talk of confusion raised by having a multitude of TLDs is also
> pure FUD.

I actually  think that the opposite is true, that having a multitude of Root
Domains is not a problem. Otherwise telephone numbers would have broken
uears ago.

What this is, is all about following the proven model that the telco people
have laid out and the listening of ICANN and IETF executives jump up and
down proletizing on how this wont work... But the reality is that just
adding TLD after TLD is insane and really shows the problems with the folks
currenly trying to "paint themselves" as the managers of the Internet.

> People have become accustomed to changing area codes
> constantly, as well as having to use more digits in phone numbers, dial
> around codes, etc.  The public would become accustomed to a variety
> of TLD extensions in the same manner and more companies would
> spring up to index them.

Leah I disagree here - the problem is not one that can be compared with Area
Codes by your model. AC's preface a number not post-pend it. The intent is
to use a smaller set of possible network address instances, and then
replicate that set over any number of areas by prefacing the station and
network address with the zone or area code. As to DNS there is an obvious
parallel. A root zone idetifier to preface the station address.

Futher there is no play between the registrars and the search engines as
there should be, also a failing of ICANN's current operations models as
well.

>
> Registries could succeed or fail.  People and companies would then
> have to make changes just as they do when they move and change
> phone numbers or an area code is changed forcing companies and
> individuals to adjust.

Thats if the average customer could do this. I assure you that most cannot
wade through the mire her and their domains would be crashed until something
happened to pick up the services of said registry.

> It's a pain, but we all do it.  A worse scenario
> would be to not allow new area codes and have an artificial scarcity of
> phone numbers.  I see no difference with the lack of TLDs in the USG
> root, especially when there are thousands of TLDs already in existence,
> many of which actively accept registrations.  It's no longer an
> experiment in the sense that it can be done.  It's been done.  So what is
> ICANN's excuse?
>
> Leah
>
> >
> > Thursday, August 8, 2002, 8:35:21 AM, J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin
> > <jefsey@club-internet.fr> wrote: JFCJM> yes. but what is the need for a
> > registrar (as understood today)? JFCJM> jfc
> >
> > JFCJM> On 13:05 08/08/02, Ross Wm. Rader said:
> > >>Any number of them. The very existence of registrars in this namespace
> > >>is, in itself, an innovation. The myriad of business models they
employ
> > >>represent an innovation, the technology that they use, in many cases,
> > >>represent an innovation...the list does go one, but the specifics are
> > >>well-documented and not really important to this discussion.
> > >>                       -rwr
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----
> > Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
> > donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net         http://www.inetconcepts.net
> > PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
> > Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> > ----
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html