Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 1999 at 12:22:38PM -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
>> Hmmm. What power does the USG have to prevent people from using
>> alternative TLDs?
> None whatsoever. What keeps people from using alternative TLDs
> is economics. The primary value of a domain name on the
> Internet is that it gives global visibility. Alt-TLDs are
> invisible, so there is no practical value to have a domain name
> in an alt-tld. Without alternative TLDs, there is no point in
> having an alternative root.
I agree with you, but I wouldn't so much call this the coercive power
of the USG; it seems more to be the collective desire of people who use
(and pay for) Internet access to have reliable, minimal-overhead
services. If anything, the USG understands that this is something
that the majority of Internet users want (at least today), so their
policies tend to reflect this.
Personally, I have nothing against alternative TLDs. I can contact them
when I need to. The following comes from a message I posted to
comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains on the subject:
*****
In article <7d9n06$sm0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Karl Denninger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Who still thinks that eDNS is a bad idea?
>Sorry, recent converts - your shot at fixing this was pissed down the chute
>two years ago, and its not coming back (at least not in any incantation that
>I'm involved with!)
I think eDNS and the other alternative schemes are fine for people who
have a fair amount of sophistication with Internet protocols and
services (and willingness to spend time with them). It's not good for
people who are "end users" who want reliability and consistency for
name resolution. Since most Internet users are now "end users,"
business models will tend to favor that which requires the least
amount of hassle.
*****
This generally seems to match your views.
--gregbo
