Re: Int'l diversity in iTLD Registries

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

Excerpts from internet.listserv.iahc-discuss: 11-Dec-96 Re: Int'l
diversity in iTLD.. by "Stephane F. Kallos"@int 
> In other words:
> Short-term: More iTLDs with a single registry per iTLD
>  Long-term: Keep options open for a shared registry system allowing
competitionØr
> n in
>             each TLD.  (here nothing is certain)

And you expect all the NEW monopolies on .___ (fill in the blanks) TLD to
just "give" up their monopoly? NSI has a contract which expires in 98, I
believe. But for practical and monopolistic reasons, I doubt someone else
will take over the job of the Internic. 

On the other hand, creating new monopolies over TLD would just lead to the
same problem. Of course, a lawyer could create a long long legal binding
agreement where the monopoly is granted for X years and then after that
there is no guarantee that the TLD operator would get to resume TLD
operation. But suppose the TLD operator decides after X years to be hostile
and resist the change. Then who gets screwed in the end? The people who
registered in that TLD.

If shared registries are not a viable alternative, then we should WAIT till
they are. Not produce more problems.

 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.