Thus spake "Eric A. Hall" <ehall(_at_)ehsco(_dot_)com>
on 12/2/2002 11:13 AM Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Okay, so when every foo.com. applies to become a foo., how will you
control the growth?
1/ no trademarks allowed
Every combination of characters is trademarked for some purpose in some
jurisdiction. If you find some exceptions, I'll find some VC money and take
care of that; problem solved.
2/ competitive rebidding every two years
IBM is not going to like potentially losing IBM. every two years to someone
with more cash. VeriSign's customers *really* won't like every registration
under VERISIGN. going away if VeriSign loses a bid.
3/ mandatory open downstream registrations (no exclusions)
A hierarchy without any kind of classification? That just means everyone
will register their under every possible TLD and we'll get a million copies
of the same flat namespace. Look at COM. vs NET. today, most SLDs from one
exist in the other, and VeriSign even offers a package where they'll
register your SLD in every single TLD that exists for one price.
4/ high entry fees
Well, that'll certainly be needed, since the root registrar will need a few
hundred DNS servers to handle the volume of new queries in the root now that
you've made a flat namespace.
IMHO, the only solution to this problem is the elimination of gTLDs
There isn't enough demand to support more than a few dozen popular TLDs.
Au contraire. There are several dozens of popular ccTLDs, but only one
popular gTLD (out of what, 9 now?).
Generic TLDs are user-driven, with the market deciding which ones they
want to use. Geographic TLDs are completely arbitrary and favor the
functionary instead of the user.
That depends on the local functionary. Many ccTLDs are completely free to
residents of the respective country. And every one I've worked with has
better customer service than the registry for COM.