On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:25:56 -0700 (PDT), Greg Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>William X. Walsh wrote:
>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >For those missing the basis for the attempt at irony, the reference
>> >pertains to the decision to require a top-level registry (e.g., the
>> >organization holding and controlling .com or the like) to be non-profit,
>> >versus permiting it to be for-profit.
>
>> Rather than letting multiple gTLDs exist, with different models, and
>> letting consumers decide which they prefer.
>
>> The difference is that Dave's view doesn't permit anything BUT his
>> view, whereas Chris's permits both of them (and others) to coexist.
>
>> You decide who is more reasonable.
>
>*sigh*
>
>Are there any people from the ISP or NAP community on this list who
>are willing to comment (even privately) on how willing they have been
>to point their servers at alternative root zones, or to what
>extent they want any (or all) of the TLDs in these zones added to the
>IANA roots?
Actually such a discussion has been happening over the last couple
days on an ISP Tech's list, and with all the antics at ICANN and NSI
over the last year, there is an overwhelming interest, even amongst
those who, as short as a year ago, were wondering if new TLDs were
really a good or not.
>Don't consumers already have this choice? They can very well pick an
>ISP or NAP depending upon what TLDs they resolve (or will let them
>resolve).
No, not yet. And the simple fact is that real choice won't happen
until the root-servers.net root server network is openned to REAL
competition at the registry level, despite your neverending belief
that this is not desirable.
--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
"The fact is that domain names are new and have unique
characteristics, and their status under the law is not yet clear."
--Kent Crispin (June 29th, 1999)
