Shared TLD's: DEAD (Re: First come/First served)

[tor@wtv.net (Bob Allisat)]

Kent Crispin originally wrote:
>You realize, of course, that by making all iTLDs non-exclusive
>(shared), the issue of FCFS vs other means of allocation really
>becomes moot?  Also, if the license agreements were reasonably
>crafted, legal complications over who owned the right to be a
>registry for a particular domain would be minimized.


I, Bob Allisat
: Yes. But it's technically clunky,
: conceptually flawed and impossible
: to implement reasonably in a dispersed
: and decentralized network environment
: like the Internet.


Kent replied:
>Bob, you have it exactly backward, of course.  It's the exclusive
>ownership iTLD model that is conceptually flawed, and impossible to
>implement reasonably in a dispersed and decentralized network
>environment like the Internet.

 There it stands. A clear and
 prescient choice. Either TLD's
 are exclusive or Shared. There
 is no way we can have half and
 half. Mr. Kent must demostrate
 that a shared Registry can work
 TODAY in ten places worldwide.
 I can point to numerous and
 currently functioning EXCLUSIVE
 registries working right now.

 So it's clear. No show, no go.
 Now it's only a matter of how
 long befiore everyone realizes
 the Shared TLD issue is dead.

                             Bob Allisat

   PO Box 191 Station E Toronto Canada M6H 4E2      (416) 588-0670