Auerbach Weighs in for gTLD Lotteries

Agree, especially since there are hundreds, if not thousands of operating registries already. I'd love to see "qualified" defined. If a registry has been operating for years, is it suddenly not qualified to operate based on some arbitrary criteria?

Unfortunately, auctions do result in those with the deepest pockets winning whether or or not they are any better at it than those with few dollars for acceptance to the "club." Some of the older registries have expended large sums over the years and are operating on marginal budgets. Why should they have to pony up more fees to do what they have been doing all those years?

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

Re:This is a non-problem by lsolum Sunday April 06 2003, @03:54PM

Re:This is a non-problem
by KarlAuerbach on Sunday April 06 2003, @01:04PM (#11434)
User #3243 Info | http://www.cavebear.com/

The DNS simply does not have the technical capacity to hold a zone large enough to satisfy every person or entity that might want to have a name.

I've suggested that the numerical limit is at least in the range of several millions - as demonstrated by the size of .com. But there are billions (with a "b") of people, and I don't think that anyone believes that a single DNS zone will scale to those numbers.

So I agree that technical competence (including adherence to standards) is a necessary condition, but it isn't sufficient. There needs to be some kind of system of allocation. I have suggested 10,000 new slots a year - that way it will take us a century to get to a million TLDs.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

Re:This is a non-problem
by lsolum on Sunday April 06 2003, @03:16PM (#11437)
User #3416 Info | http://lsolum.blogspot.com/

Read the rest of this comment...

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

Re:This is a non-problem by KarlAuerbach Sunday April 06 2003, @03:28PM
- Re:This is a non-problem by lsolum Sunday April 06 2003, @07:31PM
  - Re:It's A Huge Problem by lsolum Monday April 07 2003, @08:27PM
    - Re:It's A Huge Problem by lsolum Tuesday April 08 2003, @08:20PM
      - Pyramid Schemes by lsolum Wednesday April 09 2003, @09:58AM
        Re:Pyramid Schemes by lsolum Wednesday April 09 2003, @01:26PM
        Looks like a:pyramid scheme to me by fnord Thursday April 10 2003, @10:08AM
        End of Pyramid Scheme Discussion by lsolum Thursday April 10 2003, @10:31AM
        Not Quite the End of Pyramid Scheme Discussion :) by fnord Thursday April 10 2003, @11:40AM
        Apologies to Fnord & More on Pyramids by lsolum Thursday April 10 2003, @05:10PM
        Re:Apologies to Fnord & More on Pyramids by fnord Friday April 11 2003, @10:41AM
        1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        2 replies beneath your current threshold.
      - 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    - 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  - 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

1 reply beneath your current threshold.

Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com