Milton Mueller wrote:
>
> >From the article:
>
> "Since PGMedia filed its suit, however, the Internet landscape has
> changed drastically, throwing a monkey wrench into an
> already-complicated lawsuit. Last fall, the National Science
> Foundation passed responsibility for the Internet to Commerce
> Department, which in turn has laid out a plan to turn administration
> to a private company and open up registration competition. By March,
> five companies are slated to offer wholesale registration to addresses
> ending in ".com," ".net," and ".org," and by June, the field is slated
> to be opened to any accredited registrar."
>
> My reply:
> So what? Anybody can register names in com net and org now. New
> registrars don't add new TLDs.
>
> My further comment:
> Where are all those "shared TLD" advocates from the gTLD-MoU days?
> PGMedia is arguing for a completely open, shared namespace. Of course,
> it wouldn't be under the control of POC, PAB, or CORE--or ICANN. I
> guess that makes it kinda unattractive, eh?
>
> --MM
>
The reason for PGMedia's lack of support is that their stated plans are
simply not credible. Their version of shared registries depends upon
universal replacement of the existing DNS with their vaguely described and
questionably feasible SINDI and PAM protocols. Their "interim solution" in
the absence of these protocols would effectively give PGMedia absolute
authority over all new TLDs, thereby replacing the existing NSI monopoly
with an NSI/PGMedia duopoly.
