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

[eric@hi-tek.com]

Agreeing to disagree is the beginning of good dialogue and the convergence of
differing rivers of thought.
Please Senora Gallegos embrace this dialogue so we all may learn.  He asked
questions many of us less informed would ask.  It is very helpful to us
dotcommoners.
[long live the inclusives]

Eric

"L. Gallegos" wrote:

> On 9 Aug 2002, at 15:27, todd glassey wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> We'll have to agree to disagree, I think.
>
> > 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.
>
> Yes.
>
> > 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
>
> It's a mixed bag.  Many people do, some don't.  Most have no idea what
> it's all about.
>
> > - 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.
>
> This is where we really diverge.  If you have duplicates of any TLD, you
> have problems with all sorts of things, email being just one.  The roots
> need to agree to not duplicate TLDs and were working towards that until
> the duplication of .BIZ by ICANN.  I'm sure that someone somewhere
> will duplicate .com and there will be the biggest mess we've seen yet if
> and when that happens. Under the DNS, you still cannot duplicate TLD
> registries and not have technical problems. It will prove the point,
> though.  Keep in mind that the US can control only so much - even
> through legislation.  There is a big world out there.
>
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> There are already several root systems and people are choosing among
> them - more all the time.  Most of them are based outside the US.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> If there had been duplicate AC's the system would have broken.  That is
> why the standard was set up.  You can have a multitude of telco
> sytems, but they all operate in agreement so that numbers will work.
> The ones that do not, experience neighbors not being able to dial each
> other (I believe Kenya is one city that has this problem, but there are
> others outside the US).  With duplication of TLDs, people have to
> choose one over the other and email is truly screwed up, not to mention
> name servers.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> We disagree here also, obviously.
>
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> Yes, we disagree.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> I don't see how or where ICANN has anything to do with search engine
> functionality.  Search engines index based on a variety of criteria.  They
> will evolve along with innovations in net technology.  ICANN should have
> nothing to do with that, any more than the FCC should regulate the
> publshing of telehphone books.
> >
>
> >
> > 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 learning curve like anything else.  How much hand holding should
> registrars provide?  Of course the more they provide, the more
> customers they will attract.  Good service is good business.  There are
> registrars currently who provide good, personalized service and charge a
> bit more than the ones who are strictly "use the knowledge base" types.
>  If you know what the heck you're doing, use the less expensive ones
> with less service.  If not, use one that provides the hand holding and
> good follow through.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Leah
> > >
>
> --
> 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