Bernard,
I'm going to try to respond to both your note and Mark's, using
yours as a base because it better reflects my perspective.
Before I go on, I think the three of us are in agreement about
the situation. The question is what can (or should) be done
about it.
--On Friday, 04 July, 2008 13:
> So the "problem" isn't whether some string not listed in 2606
> can be allocated, it is how it is used after it is allocated.
> And _that_ situation has a lot more to do about "buyer beware"
> and understanding of conflicting expectations about use than it
> does about ownership.
>
> john
> Not really. ICANN isn't "selling" single-label domains. They
> are selling (and I believe "selling" is probably now the correct
> term) plain, ordinary, TLD delegations. If I get one of those
> and populate the TLD zone only with delegation records, there
> are no problems with what ICANN has
--On Friday, 04 July, 2008 10:49 -0700 Bernard Aboba
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Single label names are local in scope. Attempting to use
>> them in a global context does not work. As the names in
>> "." get more interesting the probability of collisions with
>> existing names goes up. N
>Single label names are local in scope. Attempting to use
>them in a global context does not work. As the names in
> "." get more interesting the probability of collisions with
>existing names goes up. Not many people choose two letter
> labels for the least significant parts of their host name
