At 09:20 PM 7/8/99 , you wrote:
>in your view, what entity would instruct the independent corporation about
>what TLDs to enter, and to whom they should point? To be sure, point 3
>(and 1 and 2) may be simple, but 3 is easy precisely because it's cast as
>a ministerial task. The "hard" part seems to me to be left open: figuring
>out who instructs the TLD quill holder what to write. Unless you want to
>go for multiple roots--as many on this list do, but your own msg seems to
>exclude--I don't see how you account for this.
I don't exclude multiple roots. Inevitably everyone
will be incented to maximize inclusiveness - just
as in the telephony world, the directory services are
incented to a similar end.
The bigger root players will have some kind of equitable
scheme - maybe a simple lottery is all you need for
new TLDs plus recognition of those that have long been
operational like IODesign's .WEB
It may be a little chaotic, but that's infinitely
preferable to the sterile global governance
of the ICANN-GAC wrapped around the notion of a DNS
singularity. The existing 250 TLDs will continue
unperturbed - so they represent an ample safe haven.
Life will go on. ICANN will join its brethren in
the great OSI void. Wilkinson will retire at the EU.
Shaw will find something else putter with at the ITU.
Government bureaucrats will get sucked into the endless
traditional sinkholes - taxation, gambling, obscenity,
etc....
--tony
