Why does everyone assume that a registry must be like the Internic?

[Aveek Datta <MoNoLiTH+@CMU.EDU>]

Maybe everyone wants registries with better customer service, but I must
admit that Bob Alistat made a good point -- why do registries have to be
large?  Maybe being a large service provider is a definite plus for a
registry, but I run a small registry and I know it'll probably always stay
that way. I have no intention of ever running something as large as the
current iTLDs. Now this raises another interesting questions, do we
want/need all TLDs to be large? There lies on one hand the fact that we cant
everyone to get a TLD they can (outside of the delegated ISO TLDs) but then
I think small registries should be given a chance. I maintain about several
thousand names under ML.ORG and probably wouldn't want to go much over 
10,000 (Without some major changes in the organization). 

To Bob and others: when I was talking about the best registry, I DID not
mean the largest. I meant the BEST. Now of course this has to be defined.

BTW -- There is a way to avoid this problem. Allow small registries to
register -- but only for shared iTLDs. I think ALL iTLDs should be
registered, but I know at some point it wont happen (I doubt .MIL
will ever be shared!). But with shared TLDs we can LET all registries
running minimal requirements share, and let the market decide.

I am somewhat biased in this issue -- I run a small registry and I would
like to give TLDs a shot someday. If for some reason things dont work out,
I'd like the people who give my registry a shot not to be left in the dark.

 Aveek Datta           _ _ _   _                Email: aveek@andrew.cmu.edu
    _ __  ___ _ _  ___| (_) |_| |_     |W|   HomePage:         datta.ml.org
  _| '  \/ _ \ ' \/ _ \ | |  _| ' \ _  |E|    FreeDNS:           www.ml.org
 (_)_|_|_\___/_||_\___/_|_|\__|_||_(_) |B|       Work:      www.itc.cmu.edu
   Please do not CC: mailing list messages/responses to me through email.