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

[eric@hi-tek.com]

Dear Leah,

There are hundreds.  They are called ccTLDs and all we need do is develop them
for the benefit of the countries they represent. Easy ;-] I appreciate all of the
inclusives.  And support them at every turn.
Properly run ccTLDs fulfil the same function with an accreditation toward a
specific community based upon a geographic truth.  We are growing not shrinking
and this is good.

Eric

"L. Gallegos" wrote:

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