North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: ICANN - The Case for Replacing its Management
At 12:18 PM 2/26/2002 -0500, you wrote:
That's the point. Two (or more) companies don't *HAVE* to fight for identical flat space. This unique naming thing is all fine and good, but it is highly explosive/toxic within a confined space - especially one that is artificially constrained. The name space is fortunately flexible enough to accommodate competing companies and identical marks.On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 01:36:31 PST, Vadim Antonov said: > 1) first-come first-served registration Unfortunately, the concept is totally borked right here, mostly because of the use of DNS as a yellow-pages. Two companies that own trademarks in different fields of business both have to register under .COM (ok, so they *could* register under .US - hah), with the obvious outcomes we've known to love and enjoy (Anybody remember who the *original* owner of abc.com was?)
The alt.roots have already provided a working proof of concept without all the B.S. I'd even to so far as to say Randy Bush's recent description of an ideal ICANN ("icann only needs to a) coordinate allocation of address space to the RIRs, b) maintain the root zone file, c) slowly try to get MOUs with the folk icann actually serves") describes ORSC far better than it does ICANN.
There's no way you can pile 23 million (or however many it is now) things into one level of namespace and actually expect people to play nicely.
Aw... now you're preaching to the choir... ;-) Best Regards, Simon -- ###