RE: Re[2]: [wg-c] Recap from past threads...

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

We were getting to this just before Johnathan's straw-vote report.If you
look at it from a business perspective, there is no incremental cost to
adding yet another TLD to a registry (just another zone file). However,
the incremental cost of adding another full-blown registry is
comparatively huge (a  new data center and supporting business
organization). This makes it rather trivial for an established registry
to swamp the competition.

I am not interested in more TLDs for NSI. I am interested in more
registries so I don't have to live under NSI's DDRP, which is the main
reason that I got involved in this political cat-fight in the first
place. I get reminded of this every time I renew my SLDs and I, of
course, read the "new" license. It flat-out pisses me off every time I
read the damned thing and I have no place else to go. I want another TLD
registry choice, other than COM/NET/ORG, aka NSI, even if I have to
build the damned thing myself. I hate railroads and I hate not having
options (one and the same). Moreover, I hate having my business held
hostage to some nimrod's idea (DDRP/ADR/etc) of a lawyer job-security
policy. I believe that free-market competition, among TLD registries,
will give us options. Choices are "good"<tm>.

Did I also mention that I am a touch on the paranoid side? I don't trust
centralized control either. Multiple registries are good, in this light,
as is a multi-part root. I'd also like to see multiple root-zone
registries, each with their own family of TLD registries. But, that's a
bit much for now. A lot more technical work needs doing for that to be
viable.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> William X. Walsh
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 1999 12:01 AM
> To: Roeland M.J. Meyer
> Cc: wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: Re[2]: [wg-c] Recap from past threads...
>
>
> Sunday, August 22, 1999, 11:07:42 PM, Roeland M.J. Meyer
> <rmeyer@mhsc.com> wrote:
>
> > Since then, these debates have convinced me that the
> emphasis needs to
> > be on registries, not TLDs. That our fuzziness stems from confusing
> > these different issues (TLD vs Registry). I don't believe
> that there is
> > too much disagreement with this view.
>
> Please explain this, as I am not sure that I agree with it.
>
> We are addressing new gTLDs and the rules under which the registries
> that will manage them will operate.  The two go hand in hand and can
> not really be seperated.
>
>
>
> --
> William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
> Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934
> Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/
>
> (IDNO MEMBER)
> Support the Cyberspace Association, the
> constituency of Individual Domain Name Owners
> http://www.idno.org
>
>