And I would consider that low cost place holder to be an improvement over
the status-quo. It would give me a lot of the qualities that I'm looking
for, but not all. I'd really like more flexibility in how I can make use of
my entry in the tree. In your example, the only choice I have is to ask NSI
to turn on my entry, and get Internet wide name resolution. Plus, only NSI
is going to be providing service for that entry.
A tree structure of unique entries is useful in a lot of different ways. I
think the purposes for which the legacy tree is used could be expanded
beyond the existing arrangements without detracting from its current use.
Private interconnects, the so called 'extranets', could benefit from having
access to a mechanism that would allow coordination, so as business
arrangements change, companies can connect without having to worry about
domain name collisions.
This of course assumes that the general purpose tree would not be pot-bound
like the current one, and branches could be added based on demand for
entries.
If ICANN (or whomever <g>) can expand the utility of its offerings beyond
the current application without degrading the existing arrangements, why
not? A larger user base can decrease unit costs, not to mention the
possibility of garnering a more diverse base of support by broadening the
application from its current narrow focus.
Then again, maybe I'm losing it and just need a nice, long vacation.
David Schutt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Greg
> Skinner
> Sent: Monday, March 08, 1999 4:51 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [IFWP] RE: Privacy of Domain Registration Information
>
>
> "David Schutt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Does it conflict with ICANN's bylaws? I suppose it would under some
> > definitions of registry, but my working definition of registry
> was that it
> > maintained the entries *and* provided name resolution services.
>
> > And paying once may or may not be an advantage, that would depend on the
> > amount you're paying, wouldn't it?
>
> NSI could decide to price its registrations according to record type.
> People who just want to have domain name placeholders obtain a mapping
> to a TXT record. As this resolution has little use (except to
> people interested in knowing if the name is claimed), it could be less
> of a burden on NSI's servers than other records (e.g. SOA, NS, A).
> NSI could charge less for this type of registration than its normal
> rates -- perhaps much less; enough to make it less attractive for
> people to register in ICANN's placeholder database at its flat rate.
> What would be the purpose of obtaining an expensive "license" when you
> can get effectively the same service (placeholding) for much less?
>
> I also think that ICANN would have to somehow make public the list of
> registered names. (Otherwise, what proof do we have that the names
> are indeed reserved?)
>
> --gregbo
>
