Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>]

Folks,

I do apologize for the protracted exchange, long past the daily 
limit.  However it was necessary to find out whether constructive exchange 
was possible or whether some sort of game was afoot.

Only William's truly diligent effort permitted the exchange to continue so 
long.

So, William goes back on the filter list, since it seems the best way to 
avoid the proffered distractions.

d/

  At 08:33 PM 3/19/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
>On 20-Mar-2000 Dave Crocker wrote:
> > At 08:09 PM 3/19/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> >>On 20-Mar-2000 Dave Crocker wrote:
> >> > At 07:48 PM 3/19/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> >> >>On 20-Mar-2000 Dave Crocker wrote:
> > The document highlights the need for coherent (unified, centralized, etc.)
> > management.  At base that means it does not have a collaborative, shared
> > scheme but rests management of each node (domain) with a single
> > administration
>
>Dave, the document is very specific in discussing the impact of multiple roots
>vs a single root.  This has absolutely nothing to do with non-shared gTLDs.
>...
> >>I think you are trying to pull something out of the hat that just isn't
> >>there.
> > I note that you have yet to provide a simple, straightforward answer to 
> the
> > original, simple, straightforward question I posed to you about your own
> > assertion.
>About what assertion, Dave?  That there is no "technical constraint" that
>mandates shared registries?
>
>I think that statements speaks for itself.


=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker  <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA