Greg,
Good points, all. However, I believe we may be closer to consensus on some
of these points than you currently believe.
I ask for your opinion because that's where ideas start. Concerns you
have, but don't express, can't be brought to consensus.
Until such time as consensus is reached, all any of us has is opinions.
Gene...
+++++
Hi Greg Skinner, you wrote on 6/22/99 4:37:48 PM:
>"Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There aren't any [people operating TLDs I haven't heard about].
> But you're welcome t prove me wrong :-)
>
>> What criteria would be used to determine what TLDs would be added to the
>> root, and why should people who aren't added feel any differently than
>> the people whose TLDs aren't added now?
>
>Hmmm. I thought the question was pretty simple. Are the set of all TLDs
>that people want added to the root unique? If not, whose TLDs get in?
>Even if they are unique, which ones get added first? In either case,
>you have a situation that is inherently unfair; no less fair than the
>current situation (no new TLDs). Until a process is drawn up that everyone
>who wants to operate a TLD will agree to, I don't see how we would have a
>better situation than we have now (except for those people who are lucky
>enough to get their TLD in the root when they want it).
>
>Also, in response to Gene, I have some opinions about what TLDs should go
>in, but that's the point -- they're just opinions, not really valid beyond
>the uses I might put them to. (In general, I only care that they provide
>the level of service that they claim to.) But if there are conflicts,
>either in actual names, or other criteria (e.g. should a TLD for NICs be
>added before one for PERsonal names), I don't see that we have reached
>some kind of consensus point where everyone involved would agree on how
>those conflicts would be resolved.
>
>--gregbo
+++++++++++++++++++++
I'm very happy @.HOME
Gene Marsh
president, anycastNET Incorporated
