At 03:40 PM 3/31/99 -0800, you wrote:
And I'll second all of this as well. (Not that anyone cares, I'm
sure, but I think the exchange has squeezed out the real
meaning of what most of the various people not addicted to
profanity and bashing for bashing's sake have been saying.)
Bill Lovell
>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
