Clarification

["Leo Smith" <barter@ntplx.net>]

Michael...On January 1, 1997, I read your initial posting regarding the
basis for Postel's draft endorsing exclusive registries. I then sent the
following email to postel asking for clarification. I did not mention your
name in my clarification request, but I did ask for postel's position on
the issue of exclusive registries. This was sent to postel prior to receipt
of your correction.
>January 1, 1997
>TO: postel@isi.edu
>FROM: Leo Smith barter@ntplx.net
>SUBJECT: Clarification
>Mr. Postel...I've follow the TLD registry debate and would like to ask for
direct >clarification on the foundation for the exclusive license registry
model incorporated >in your draft. I recently received this posting in
which the basis for your position on >exclusive registries was claimed. I
would appreciate any feedback from you on why >your draft endorsed the
exclusive license registry model. Thank you...Leo Smith

>>"Postel's plan proposed exclusive registries because he wrongly
>>believed that it would be too complicated to have shared TLD's. It
>>is understandable that he would make this wrong assumption since
>>his expertise is as a high-speed networking researcher and not as
>>an implementor of commercial databases. Of course, this is the
>>whole purpose of a draft, to get assumptions down on paper so
>>that people can either agree with them or show how they are faulty.
>>And now that the TLD issue has moved to a committee with 
>>members who have some experience on implementing database 
>>systems it appears that exclusive monopoly control of a TLD is out 
>>of the question."