Rob and all,
Rob, you make very many good points here, and they have been
made many times before. However there are methods of
solving every one of them currently. The problem with doing
so on a large scale is that there would be a perceived
"Split Root" claim by many if this was done. FWIW, that
is going to happen anyway unless or until ICANN makes some
drastic changes in the policy direction it is now seemingly heading
towards.
Rob Raisch wrote:
> Gene Marsh writes:
> > While root servers are, indeed, necessary for
> > resolution, they do not have to be the current root servers.
> > Additional / alternate root servers can certainly be used
> > (and ARE being used) for new TLDs.
>
> Certainly. But without some sort of top-level coordination to guarantee
> global reach for all roots and support at the browser-level to circumvent
> the arduous process of attaining global governmental imprimatur, they will
> continue to be low-use, limited-affect curiosities. (I'm sorry if that
> sounds harsh, but the chicken-and-egg problem posed by a TLD without
> valuable registrations is really pretty intractable.)
>
> You can argue that such top-level coordination already exists, and yet, you
> appear to believe (from the legal (sm) in your signature) that someone can
> "own" a TLD.
>
> The curious thing about a TLD is that, without customers, it has no
> intrinsic value whatsoever. It is only after registrations occur under it
> that any value emerges and it is this transfer of value from registrant to
> registrar which attracts registrars intent on owning and thus controlling
> the imaginary intellectual property a TLD appears to represent.
>
> The real problem represented by this misunderstanding is simple: allowing
> TLDs to be "owned" traps the registrant to dance to whatever whim of
> economics or perversity its "owner" requires. And so, without strong
> administrative control, such excesses will naturally occur.
>
> "Strong administrative control" is exactly what we wish to avoid, since this
> is clearly the role of government, not industry. You could argue that
> industry will miraculously manage this control, and I would imagine that is
> certainly possible, but there must be a select few who do the controlling,
> and that way also lies tyranny. (The situation we currently enjoy.)
>
> Of course, if TLDs are not owned and any registrar can register into any TLD
> as required by its customer, the problem of consumer entrapment evaporates.
>
> This is why I believe "the problem of DNS" is not one which can be solved by
> simply expanding upon the current system. Something new must emerge, in
> addition to DNS, which answers the larger issues without the attendant
> baggage or false assumptions of rapacious value.
>
> How do *you* believe the various proto-roots will reach critical mass and
> coalesce into a single globally-resolvable namespace and integrate into the
> existing DNS?
>
> I note it has yet to occur since I am unable to send mail to you directly.
>
> --
> Rob Raisch CTO - RivalWorks, Inc. <http://www.rivalworks.com>
> Who do you want to play today?
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
