Re: [wg-c] Trying to close on Question 1

["A.M. Rutkowski" <amr@netmagic.com>]

Mark,

 >I can't accept this.  It's the same thing everyone who's been against
 >adding anything other than a handful of gTLDs has been trying to achieve
 >since we began.  It's not compromise, it's reporting that position, plus
 >a few numbers.

The key consideration is what will pass judicial muster.
Likely relevant considerations for the court will be
what the previous increase patterns are, as well as
what the technical limit is.

The actual increase in TLD zones in the root zone file
(per Lottor) is as follows:

    time    TLDs  #/mo. increase

    Oct-85      6  ---
    Apr-92     48  0.5
    Jul-92     50  0.7
    Oct-92     53  1.0
    Jan-93     59  2.0
    Apr-93     63  1.3
    Jul-93     66  1.0
    Oct-93     67  1.3
    Jan-94     68  1.0
    Jul-94     83  0.3
    Oct-94     90  0.3
    Jan-95     95  1.6
    Jul-95    112  2.8
    Jan-96    136  3.9
    Jul-96    182  7.6
    Jan-97    200  2.9
    Jan-98    247  3.9
    Jan-99    247  ---
    Jul-99    250  0.5

The largest zone in extensive use - AOL.COM - zone presently
resolves 1.7 million resource records with no apparent problems.

What is not apparent is the argument that could be used for
an ICANN result that significantly reduces the average monthly
increase in TLDs.  Anyone care to posit a justification to a
hypothetical court?

That 20 people on an email list thought it was a good idea
wouldn't seem to cut it.


--tony