on 7/30/2002 11:35 AM Keith Moore wrote:
OTOH, TLDs that are popular get cached and stay that way.
no they don't - things don't stay in the cache forever, and there are various
reasons why cache entries can go away before the TTL has expired.
To the degree that this is true (which it is), it is also true for the
existing ~250 TLDs.
In general you are right, but in practical terms, there isn't much
difference between 20, 200 or 2000 TLDs, as long as they don't also
introduce, say, a billion phones to the service network.
no. a few hundred million hosts using (on average) two dozen popular TLDs
will generate twice the load on the roots as the same number of hosts using
(on average) a dozen popular TLDs.
That only holds true if the number of queries also doubles. EG, people
would have to visit sites in .foo plus .bar, and not just .foo. Moreover,
they would have to continue visiting .foo at the same overall rate. We are
talking about percentage increments not factors.
and *someone* has to decide which TLDs are "handed out".
Pull-side economics can make this decision. If people think there are
sustainable markets for .auto and .car then there's no reason not to let
them both out of the bag.
read the statement again. *someone* has to decide whch TLDs are "handed out".
we can argue about the criteria that should be used to influence such
decisions, but there are still decisions that have to be made.
There are policy decisions which have to be made which control how the
process goes, certainly. But there is absolutely no reason that ICANN
needs to decide on which specific TLDs are created.
and *someone* has to decide how high those fees should be, and what the
criteria are, etc. and *someone* has to spend that money.
No argument here.
--
Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/