Re: Int'l diversity in iTLD Registries

["Joseph J. Kim" <jokim@server.Berkeley.EDU>]

On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, Ron Fitzherbert wrote:

> I agree with the concept of shared registries, however, I think the
> comment about "monopolies" is a bit off the mark.  Right now the only
> monopoly that NSI has is that the NSF is not going to contract to another
> company to perform registration services for COM/NET/ORg et.al. -- if I
> want to start a new registry for .COM I can in about 30 seconds, the
> problem is the root domain servers (and the fact that they won't listen to
> me) -- so all I would need to do is either convince the root server
> operators that they should listen to me, or convince enough people in the
> internet that they should use the root servers I would set up.
>
> In the internet (as it is defined today) it is impossible to have a true
> monopoly -- you may the appearance of such, but in fact you just have a
> herd of lemmings (so to speak).

I'm sure you know better than what you have just stated.  Considering
that NSI currently administers 100% of all .COM, etc. registrations would
suggest a monopoly.  Besides that we want a consistent mapping of domain
names for all users over the entire Internet which makes competition in
the sense you described (by partitioning) undesirable. 

In addition, convincing enough people to use other root servers has been
proven to be incredibly difficult... just ask the AlterNic guys.  I 
don't want to offend them but I seriously doubt even the 5% market they 
claim... maybe .5% more likely .0000000000005%.  :-).  Relax guys that 
last figure was a joke, we'll just say it's a small figure.

-jjk