This is currently a mostly capex-less exercise. I agree, the load is on
operations, and likely at ICANN, VeriSign, and the DoC.
We need way more detail than we have, but I hope all parties and the AC's move
in a stewardship -and- commerce friendly direction with this. Even if it causes
an evolution in the root -- which I believe it will.
Best,
Marty
"Nothing like having a front row seat on the Internet".
---Mary Reindeau
----- Original Message -----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Joe Greco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sun Jun 29 23:59:58 2008
Subject: DNS and potential energy
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 02:14:58PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> The only decision that is required is whether new generic top-level
> domains are desired. If not, do nothing. Otherwise, shake as much
> energy into the system as possible and sit back and let it find its
> own steady state.
>
> Joe
possession and use of classV explosives is regulated in
most jurisdictions.
but if you think that if we pack enough C4 into the DNS
and set it off, that we might find equalibrium, you might
be right. :) the result will still be a flat namespace,
(perhaps a crater where the namespace was).
one might legitimately argue that ICANN is in need of
some serious regulation....
that can happen at that national level or on the international
level.
--bill
