🚀 go-pugleaf

At 05:54 PM 4/16/98 -0400, Robert Raisch wrote:
>What I find most interesting is that no argument I have yet seen presented
>by the technocrats provides any clear technical reason why 'dot' cannot be
>opened for free market competition other than '...because it would be bad.'

There have rather more substantive responses than that, repeatedly and at
length.  It's odd that you missed them.

>Each 'solution' so far presented appears to represent an ideological
>viewpoint, not a technical one.

Sorry, no.  The substantive arguments pertains to operational impact and
stability of the net, therefore proposing an incremental approach.  The
important source of contention is not what the upper limit is, but how
quickly new names should be added.  Some believe any number of new names
should just be created all at once.  Others believe that the potential for
negative scaling effects is real and serious, thereby necessitating
incremental additions, in order to monitor and limit those effects, and to
permit operational adjustments as necessary. 

Oh, yes.  

There is also a source of concern from the trademark community, with
respect to policing.  Particularly due to the remarkably limiting policies
of NSI, trademark policing for com/net/org are somewhere between painful
and horrible.  This isn't necessary, if a registry gives appropriate access
to the relevant data for policing efforts.  Still, the trademark community
has now been taught to fear additional gTLDs.

d/
__________________________________________________________________________
Dave Crocker                 Brandenburg Consulting        +1 408 246 8253
dcrocker@brandenburg.com       675 Spruce Drive        (f) +1 408 273 6464
www.brandenburg.com         Sunnyvale, CA 94086  USA