🚀 go-pugleaf

Further reading on this subjet may be found in comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains.

Here's an example:


 n article <323173FD.5794@mhsc.com>, Roeland Meyer  <rmeyer@mhsc.com> wrote:
>Larry Daffner wrote:
>> 
>> In <vxkenkfe3y2.fsf@mnemosyne.nectar.cs.cmu.edu> Karl Kleinpaste <karl@cs.cmu.edu> writes:
>> 
>> >Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> writes:
>> >> The fact that Karl still has A records for MCS.COM and MCS.NET seems to
>> >> indicate that he does not trust his new TLDs to provide him with
>> >> equivalent service to InterNIC TLDs.
>> 
>> >That's absurd, Mark.
>> 
>> >It's called a "conversion period," and we've all heard of and used
>> >them.  Or would you claim that, e.g., on the day RFC822 was released,
>> >you immediately stopped accepting mail using RFC733 format?
>> 
>> We're not talking about a noew standard here, though.  We are talking
>> about a new SERVICE. So, the comparable situation would be, for
>> example, if you started this awesome new email service... but 99.997%
>> of the net could not send mail to your email addresses.
>
>It's called boot-straping. In order for the new service to gain
>acceptance
>it must first use the monopoly's service in order to provide equivalent
>Service Levels. Any other way would involve more money than Midas has in
>his vault. It is one way that a monopoly retains its power in the first
>place.
>
>Realize, that in the ultimate free, capitalistic economy, once a
>monopoly
>has taken hold, there is no way to dislodge it. This is why it took the
>MFJ to break the RBOCs loose from AT&T and the Telecomm reform act of
>1996
>to provide local competition.
> 
>> >"Let's see: I've got some new TLDs now.  Nobody else knows how to put
>> >them to use yet, but I think I'll cut myself off from 99.997% of the
>> >rest of the Internet anyway, RIGHT NOW.  As a favor to my customers,
>> >of course."
> 
>> But yet, this is exactly what Karl is asking his customers to do! The
>> objective of obtaining a domain name in one of Karl's new TLD's is
>> supposed to "free them from the InterNIC monopoly". Out of the
>> monopoly, into oblivion. When offering a valuable service, one should
>> ensure that that service does indeed have a value :)
> 
>> >I have no doubt that, once the alternate TLD roots are in wide use,
>> >Denninger will remove himself from .COM and .NET.
> 
>> ... And when he does, he has a chance of being taken seriously. For
>> the moment, the situation is rather like if, say, Sprint were to offer
>> long distance service, and have AT+T as their primary long distance
>> provider.
>
>This is exactly what is happening in California, dude. AT&T is leasing
>local
>access from Pacific Bell so that they can re-sell it to customers as an
>AT&T service. AT&T does not have local plant. MCI, GTE, et alia, are
>doing
>the same thing. Likewise, Pacific Bell will lease long-distance from 
>various companies so that we can provide Inter-LATA service to our
>customers.
>
>In no other manner will you get local competition. It just costs too 
>much time and money to build all that outside wire. Not to mention the
>inefficiencies of having multiple wire nets overlaying a neighborhood.
>Not to mention the condfusion.
>
>BTW, Sprint does exactly that for certain regions of the country.
>Actually,
>ALL the LDP's do it as well as the LEC's. Everybody's in-bed with
>everybody
>else.
> 
>> Just my 2 pieces of copper
>
>Here's your change, Sir. <grin>
>
>I see no difference in the InterNet. In order for a new TLD to work, it
>MUST use the InterNIC until it gains enough user-base to stand on it's
>own.
>Unless, it has it's own network topology as its primary links.
>
>Now, if all the FidoNet nodes got together and decided to replace their
>Nodelist based directory system with DNS and create the "*.ftn" TLD then
>they could do it because they are a self-sufficient WAN anyway. Most of 
>their nodes do not have an InterNet address and they already have 40K 
>members in their network. They've also been around for 10+ years.
>
>That is about the only case in which, what you're proposing, could be
>done!
>In any other case, such as Karl's, you have to boot-strap from the
>InterNIC's
>system, or pack it in and go home.
>
>I'm watching Karl's efforts with interest.


-- 
Richard Sexton
root@cabal.org