You asked why shared registry advocates don't support PGMedia. I replied to
that question. The substance of PGMedia's proposals is entirely relevant
(in fact, crucial) to that issue.
As for the lawsuit, a PGMedia victory would not establish "the principle of
non-discriminatory access to the root", but rather that PGMedia is entitled
to any TLDs it wants, irrespective of the rights of other claimants to the
same TLDs (e.g. .web).
Milton Mueller wrote:
>
> John:
> What you think of PGMedia's specific proposals does not really
> matter. What is
> at issue in the lawsuit is the principle of non-discriminatory
> access to the
> root. An antitrust lawsuit is not a substitute for a new system of root
> administration. But it can establish the legal principles upon which a new
> system of administration is based. The success of MCI's legal
> challenge to the
> AT&T monopoly did not hinge upon its ability to propose an
> entirely new system
> of long distance regulation. It simply had to prove that AT&T had
> engaged in
> illegal attempts to shut it out of the market.
> --MM
>
> John B. Reynolds wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>
>
