At 05:38 AM 7/9/99 GMT, William X. Walsh wrote:
>On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 00:38:08 -0400 (EDT), "Richard J. Sexton"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>At 12:04 AM 7/9/99 -0400, Jon Zittrain wrote:
>>><shrug> I just meant to list the sorts of pressures that have moved DNS
>>>issues squarely out of the realm of the technical. I understand that some
>>>entrepreneurs want *un*shared registries--they could make lots of money as
>>>the sole holders of them--while others want a piece of a registry: witness
>>>the number of companies seeking to join the shared registration system for
>>>.com, .net, and .org. And, the White Paper--which I think I've seen you
>>>call a consensus document at times--does reference the idea. I
>>>dunno. Doesn't seem like bias to me to simply include it on the list, but
>>>I suppose he who has the blinders on doesn't readily know what he's
>>>missing. ...JZ
>>
>>Uh, I don't think the guy doing .FREE was planning
>>on being "an entrapeneur wanting to make a lot
>>of money". Some people probably do, while others
>>hum the cost recovery mantra.
>>
>>Shared/non-shared, registry/registrar vs. peered registry,
>>non-profit/for-profit/low-profit...
>>it's a big mix and there's a lot of permutations
>>and combinations. Again, all the world's not
>>.com and there are too many applications of the
>>DNS to be covered under a single homogensous model,
>>no matter how well it may or may not work for .com.
>
>Our .BOX would be setup as a $5/2 year service.
>Oh yeah, we would get real rich on that. NOT.
>
>We are going ahead with it anyway, we have setup a third level
>registry to mirror registrations under, and will operate it for free
>at the moment.
>
>When I was with ML.org we talked quite frequently about how it would
>be great to operate a totally free user supported registry for second
>level domains under a free TLD.
>
>This constant idea of there being a single workable model for TLDs is
>absolutely wrong. ML.org operated a 3rd level registry with WELL over
>150,000 domains when it was shut down (I never got the final number
>before it was closed, but estimates from a member of the board put the
>number just short of 200,000). DHS.org, formed by some former ml.org
>staff, currently is just short of 30,000 domains in their free 3rd
>level registry. People who need personal domains WILL support
>non-profit and low profit models. Some people who need commercial
>domains but are willing to live with a much lower level of service
>guarantee in exchange for the low entry cost would also support these
>models.
As ICANN flies all over the world it's good to see people
actually deploying infrastructure. I'd be happy to add
pointers to your zone, would you like to exchange secondaries?
Have you checked with the other RSC operators ? If I
understand you correctly you're only taking registrations
under the third level. I think list.box would be a great
assent to the mailing list community or even as a mailbox
service. I'm interested in that name. Perhaps you should
join the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list where a lot of work
is going on with deployment of new registries and infrastructure
and you can give and take reources as you please and work out
the peering arrangements with other TLD administrators
and RSC operators.
It's funny how in 3 years people move back and forth between
niches. You stared out in cctlds and are not doing extended
domains, whereas I started out with alternative domains, but
seeing that come along fairly well with a strong community,
will now shift my focus a bit to cctlds.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"They were of a mind to govern us and we were of a mind to govern ourselves."
