At 12:04 AM 7/9/99 -0400, Jon Zittrain wrote:
><shrug> I just meant to list the sorts of pressures that have moved DNS
>issues squarely out of the realm of the technical. I understand that some
>entrepreneurs want *un*shared registries--they could make lots of money as
>the sole holders of them--while others want a piece of a registry: witness
>the number of companies seeking to join the shared registration system for
>.com, .net, and .org. And, the White Paper--which I think I've seen you
>call a consensus document at times--does reference the idea. I
>dunno. Doesn't seem like bias to me to simply include it on the list, but
>I suppose he who has the blinders on doesn't readily know what he's
>missing. ...JZ
Uh, I don't think the guy doing .FREE was planning
on being "an entrapeneur wanting to make a lot
of money". Some people probably do, while others
hum the cost recovery mantra.
Shared/non-shared, registry/registrar vs. peered registry,
non-profit/for-profit/low-profit...
it's a big mix and there's a lot of permutations
and combinations. Again, all the world's not
.com and there are too many applications of the
DNS to be covered under a single homogensous model,
no matter how well it may or may not work for .com.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"They were of a mind to govern us and we were of a mind to govern ourselves."
