Re: Conflict resolution?

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 12:53 PM +0900 11/19/96, David R. Conrad wrote:

> >The important idea is that *all* iTLD delegations from the IANA (or
> >whoever) are non-exclusive.  This would get us away from the corrosive
> >idea that iTLDs are "hot properties".
>
> I'd just like to strongly support what Kent has said here -- it would
> seem to me that a large majority of the "discussions" over the
> creation of new domains could be resolved by simply making the
> following statement:
>
> _ALL_ top level domains _MUST_ be shared
>

***WRONG***

You are including .MIL, .GOV & .INT & ISO domains in that statement?
There is pecedent for shared, & closely-controlled non-shared TLD's.
Are you suggesting that it is appropriate for an Iraqi registry having
access to .MIL? The above statement needs to be amended to:

_APPROPRIATE_PUBLIC_ top level domains _MUST_ be shared

> This would:
>
> - remove of the current .COM/.NET/.ORG monopoly, thereby alleviating
>   what I see as _the_ major area of contention
> - handle the issue of "squatter's rights" and whether or not the
>   IANA accepted applications
> - allow for the creation of new TLDs to relieve the pressure on
>   .COM, but doing so in a much less "charged" environment
>

These are public TLD's, and as such should be shared.

> The IAHC's role would then devolve into simply approving new TLDs
> based on perceived "usefulness to the Internet at large" as opposed to
> trying to establish viability of business plans (heh, good luck.  Hope
> your all's liability insurance premiums are paid up).
>

Which they have to do anyway. There is no business plan for
closely-controlled TLDs.

draft-higgs-tld-cat explains all. Update coming soon.

Simon

--
Madness takes its toll.  Please have exact change.