William X. Walsh wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >For those missing the basis for the attempt at irony, the reference
> >pertains to the decision to require a top-level registry (e.g., the
> >organization holding and controlling .com or the like) to be non-profit,
> >versus permiting it to be for-profit.
> Rather than letting multiple gTLDs exist, with different models, and
> letting consumers decide which they prefer.
> The difference is that Dave's view doesn't permit anything BUT his
> view, whereas Chris's permits both of them (and others) to coexist.
> You decide who is more reasonable.
*sigh*
Are there any people from the ISP or NAP community on this list who
are willing to comment (even privately) on how willing they have been
to point their servers at alternative root zones, or to what
extent they want any (or all) of the TLDs in these zones added to the
IANA roots?
Don't consumers already have this choice? They can very well pick an
ISP or NAP depending upon what TLDs they resolve (or will let them
resolve).
--gregbo
