Re: [wg-c] voting on TLDs

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 09:50:10PM -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> >What's wrong with it is that it involves a root zone with millions of
> >entries.  It moves the .com problem to the root, and makes it worse. 
> >*No* company will want to be under any other companies TLD; *all*
> >companies will want their own TLD.  It won't solve any problems at all. 
> 
> More FUD.
> 
> Make the requirements to run a TLD reasonable, and you'll find that
> it makes no sense, either technical or economical, for the vast
> majority of companies. It does make sense for an AT&T or an IBM,
> but not for Bill's Bait and Sushi. They can't afford a dedicated and
> redundant DS3 array for their registry.

Does the word "outsourcing" mean anything to you? How about
"insignificant incremental cost"? BB&S won't need a dedicated redundant
DS3 array -- they will use AT&T's infrastructure. 

ATT has sunk the cost into the infrastructure; adding the entries in 
the table for BB&S's TLD won't be much more work than what is currently 
involved in registering an SLD, and any fees they can charge simply 
defray their already sunk costs.  BB&S can go to ICANN and say, "Look, 
I've got a contract with a huge registry with multiple OC48s that will 
provide the technical infrastructure for my TLD."  Since there would be 
thousands of large companies in this situation, competition will be 
brisk, prices will get down to the true incremental cost of adding a 
TLD to a registry (close to zero).


-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain