Hi A.M. Rutkowski, you wrote on 7/8/99 10:23:12 PM:
>At 09:20 PM 7/8/99 , you wrote:
>in your view, what entity would instruct the independent corporation about
>what TLDs to enter, and to whom they should point? To be sure, point 3
>(and 1 and 2) may be simple, but 3 is easy precisely because it's cast as
>a ministerial task. The "hard" part seems to me to be left open: figuring
>out who instructs the TLD quill holder what to write. Unless you want to
>go for multiple roots--as many on this list do, but your own msg seems to
>exclude--I don't see how you account for this.
>
>I don't exclude multiple roots. Inevitably everyone
>will be incented to maximize inclusiveness - just
>as in the telephony world, the directory services are
>incented to a similar end.
>
>The bigger root players will have some kind of equitable
>scheme - maybe a simple lottery is all you need for
>new TLDs plus recognition of those that have long been
>operational like IODesign's .WEB
>
>It may be a little chaotic, but that's infinitely
>preferable to the sterile global governance
>of the ICANN-GAC wrapped around the notion of a DNS
>singularity. The existing 250 TLDs will continue
>unperturbed - so they represent an ample safe haven.
>
>Life will go on. ICANN will join its brethren in
>the great OSI void. Wilkinson will retire at the EU.
>Shaw will find something else putter with at the ITU.
>Government bureaucrats will get sucked into the endless
>traditional sinkholes - taxation, gambling, obscenity,
>etc....
>
>
>--tony
Bravo!
+++++++++++++++++++++
I'm very happy @.HOME(sm)
Gene Marsh
president, anycastNET Incorporated
