Saturday, Saturday, January 05, 2002, 12:46:03 AM, Robert L Mathews wrote:
> At 1/4/02 7:14 PM, William X Walsh wrote: >>See, this is the argument that makes the least sense to me. Verisign >>can solve the technical problem here (and it is a strictly TECHNICAL >>PROBLEM), but rather than solve the problem their poor system design >>has created, they are trying to use the problem to justify a way for >>them to add a new profit center. > Okay, well, how should they solve it, then? If you have an idea, I'd love > to hear it (and I'm not being sarcastic). I honestly don't think it's > solvable -- there is a virtually infinite demand for some names, and the > registry/registrars/resellers can't supply virtually infinite connection > resources. > It's the same problem that landrush/sunrise periods hoped to solve with > new TLD introduction, and a whole bunch of smart people have tried > various schemes. I think we can all agree that the results of every > scheme tried so far for new TLDs and com/net/org drops have been > disasters. > So, seriously: how can you sell a resource that could be worth hundreds > of thousand of dollars to the general public for six dollars, and avoid > crushing speculation and mysterious shenanigans? Especially since the > virtual nature of the sale prevents you from limiting the applications to > one per customer? > I don't think it's a technical problem, but rather a human nature > problem. I'd love to be proven wrong. It's quite easy, actually. But to make it work, the dropped names need to be placed as available on a completely different system, hosted on a completely separate network connection. Make the system completely independent, and the issue of dropped domains will not effect the registration of other names, at all. Registrars like OpenSRS who provide access to the dropped names system would need to do a similar setup on their end, allowing access to the dropped names system only thought a completely and totally independent system. As for the new TLDs, their problems were more tied to them trying to AVOID first come first served. If they stuck to that simple process, the problems would have been minimal, and easy to solve. -- Best regards, William X Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --
