Greg,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg Skinner writes:
> In the absence of hard data, people will argue their opinion based on
> their experience.
So, tell us about your experience.
> No one knows for sure what will happen when the safe TLD limit is
> exceeded.
What safe limit would that be?
> Anyway, even if TLDs are added a thousand at a time, I've not seen
> any evidence that they will suffice to qualify all the trademarks or
> service marks that are necessary to avoid DN lawsuits.
That is something else entirely.
> Once upon a time, there were some people who thought that if you
> added more bandwidth to the Arpanet, the congestion problems that
> were occuring at the time would go away. However, it took some
> studies by a control theorist to show that changes needed to be made
> to the TCP protocol to relieve congestion.
So, more horsepower!
> You can't just throw more hardware or software at a problem and
> expect it to go away (unless you *know* that this will solve your
> problem). System-wide analysis is required.
How do ther German DNSlers percieve this? They run gazillions of
second levels with no melt down. Probably with more horsepower.
> Also, it seems to me there's been a fair amount of objection to
> stiff requirements for operating a TLD registry. Adding more TLDs
> would certainly raise the bar, in terms of processing and bandwidth
> requirements.
Yes, speak after me: "More Horsepower" :-)-O
> In such an environment, the well-heeled companies will be much more
> able to operate TLD registries than the struggling entrepreneurs.
> We might very well wind up with only a few large companies as
> registries, because the others just won't be able to survive
> financially.
That is something else entirely.
I am just saying, that there is just no evidence to support the
assertion that there are technical reasons against increasing the
number of TLDs.
el
