Re: The user viewpoint

[Vince Wolodkin <wolodkin@digitalink.com>]

James R. Cutler wrote:
> 
<much deleted......>
> 
> Please give serious consideration to the technical and business needs
> for stability and longevity of name assignment and delegation processes.
> Jon Postel's draft seems to be an excellent approach for expanding the
> useful namespace and allowing the market to judge the results.
> 
The only problem is that there is no facility for the market to judge
the results.  Once new iTLDs are authorized, there isn't any turning
back.  For better or worse they are there.  What is there for the market
to decide?

A better plan, would be(as outlined in RFC 920, which was not obsoleted
by RFC 1591) to allocate new TLDs based on need.  This could be expanded
to be based on community needs.  Draft-postel explicitly ties together
registries and TLDs.  This despite the trouble this type of relationship
has produced with NSI.

TLDs should be added based on community needs.  Registries should be
granted in a seperate/unrelated process.  All registries should be
allowed to register SLDs in any TLD(including .com, .net, and .org). 
The entire business model of the current system is WRONG.

The only way the market can truly have something to judge, is if
competitive registries with equal products are allowed to form.  This
can only happed through a complete revamping of the current system. 
Under draft-postel registries would start out on an extremely unlevel
playing field.  Depending on what TLDs each registry was assigned, some
would be selling Mercedes, while others will be selling Daihatsu, all
will be selling for about $50.  Wow, big decision for the market there.

Vince Wolodkin

>    James R. Cutler
>    EDS Corporate Registration Authority Executive Committee
> 
> -
> James R. Cutler
> EDS MS 4126   800 Tower Drive    Troy, MI 48007-7019
> Tel:  810-265-7514               Fax:  810-265-3432
> <http://www.iscg.eds.com/cutler/>
> <http://www.ltu.edu/dechtm/cutler/cutler.htm>