Re: FCFS and prior use

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

Excerpts from internet.listserv.iahc-discuss: 22-Dec-96 FCFS and prior
use by Dave Crocker@imc.org 
>         I'd be interested in seeing some explanation for, and discussion
> of, the reason the first come/first served is necessarily the assignment
> scheme that must be used.

I am probably one of the first to introduce the acronym FCFS into this
discussion back on newdom@vrx (Before I dropped off that list) and on
here soon after it started. I am still vehemently against it. I do not
speak from a legal point of view as most of the FCFS will threaten
lawsuits, and I can not say if they will win or not. But I  can say that
from the Net's point of view and fairness, the most competent registry
AT THE TIME should get the license. With shared TLDs this is less of an
issue, so instead we can use all ADEQUATE registries... However if we
try to limit the number, then we should just take the BEST X registries,
depending on the limit. 

Nobody has a right to any top level domain; its just convention that
gives the Internic their monopoly. Now that there's money involved
peopple will always break convention. That doesn't mean we should
accomodate these people. TLDs are a public namespace. I think a shared
TLD namespace, if implemented correctly with a non-profit (possibly)
central registrar, would work best with unlimited registries and
unlimited TLDs.

However I also can see why for practical reasons IAHC has chosen to
limit the initial allocation and how many are in the initial pool till
NSI gives up their monopoly. After that, as long ast hose limits are
lifted, it seems fair to me.

Aveek

 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.