Dave Warren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > If we never changed anything because of compatibilty problems, we'd all
> > be using Lynx.
>
<SEINFELD>Not that there's anything wrong with that.</SEINFELD>
> 1) Every time someone creates a new namespace, they have to get it published
> in some sort of list (The list used by these new root servers) and get their
> newly created root servers out there to be used. OR, they have to approach
> every ISP on the planet and get their server added, right?
>
> 2) Just wait until two people create duplicate namespaces. Lets say I make
> .DAVE, and so does someone else. Who owns it? Who wins? That's where some
> regulatory body comes in. Without it, everything starts to break down, it's
> just a matter of time.
>
Yes, and my answer to both of those points is as you pointed out - that's
where ICANN come in. I think we're at cross-purposes here. I was under the
impression that you thought <infinity> TLD's was a bad thing. You seemed to
get the impression that I'm suggesting some kind of TLD anarchy.
I'm not, and I never even came close to it for that matter. I'm simply
suggesting that having three - and shortly $blah to ten - TLD's is a joke.
The roots should have been opened up ages ago. The alternative registrars
have proved beyond doubt that it can work.
It all comes back to ICANN - always comes back to ICANN. They couldn't
organise a knees-up in a brewery. (...he said politely)
adam
