Hi,

thanks for the analysis.

BTW: i should mention that your family would need to be a registered/incorporated company or organization in order to apply.

a.



On 20 Jul 2010, at 12:16, tlhackque wrote:

> I thought I would add a bit of analysis to your delusion.    So here are some of 
> mine:
> 
> I'm not one of those institutional member.  But I think it comes down to cost.
> 
> If TLDs are becoming un-scarce, why wouldn't ANYONE consider one?
> 
> I have family members scattered across the globe.  If it was the same USD 10/yr 
> for
> MYFAMILY as it is for MYFAMILY.net, maybe I'd go for me@myfamily and 
> www.myfamily and smtp.myfamily and ... instead of [log in to unmask]  After all, 
> .net is just a techno-geek appendage that adds no value to the end user.  (As an 
> engineer, I know full well what it has done for the network :-)
> 
> I oppose dramatic expansion of TLDs on technical grounds.   There is no tangible 
> benefit that justifies making a really hard  technical problem (running the root 
> servers) harder/more expensive.  Everyone seems to have adapted to these little 
> appendages - and even made things like '.com' mainline chic.  (Something I never 
> thought I'd see when the DNS first replaced HOSTS files.)  However, that battle 
> is lost.   So now it comes down to who can claim the intangible so-called 
> benefits - and at what cost.
> 
> In the past, TLDs were intentionally scarce to make the root nameservers's job 
> manageable.  If MegaCorp can have a TLD, why not Microme?
> 
> The other consideration has been standard of service.  TLDs have traditionally 
> been held to (well, more or less) a higher level of service - meaning redundant 
> servers, anycast addresses, geographic dispersion -- all that stuff.  This has 
> been because of the impact on registrants were .COM to go dark.  But the 
> discussions I've heard about seem to be trending toward not requiring this of a 
> single registrant TLD, which actually makes sense.  It's the owner of the domain 
> who needs to set service standards based on his customer's needs.  In the case 
> of the traditional TLDs, the end customers are so far removed from the TLD that 
> it ought to be standarized.  But for a single registrant TLD, it's strictly an 
> internal matter - it doesn't effect the stability of the net as a whole if 
> MYFAMILY's nameservers are shut down when I'm on vacation.  (Of course, my 
> family might have a different opinion.  But that's an internal family matter...)
> 
> So if it doesn't cost more, and someone wants a TLD for esthetic reasons, why 
> are NC users different?
> 
> But, as I said, it comes down to cost.  Non-commerical users, by and large, 
> don't have deep pockets.  So the USD 300K+ fees I've seen tossed about for a TLD 
> application - much less a world-wide infrastructure for traditional TLD 
> level-of-service - would certainly rule me out (and, I suspect most NCSG 
> members.)
> 
> It may be worth discussing whether price is the proper allocation function for 
> this suddenly not-so-scarce resource.  It always does seem to trend against 
> non-commercial interests.  The marginal cost of a TLD to the root servers is 
> minimal -- but if every domain became a TLD, the total cost would be enormous - 
> and have to be born by someone.  However, the extreme prices being proposed seem 
> to be aimed at ensuring allocation ONLY to the very rich. 
> 
> 
> That said, I'm not all that anxious to add my own TLD.  If it cost 50% more than 
> my current domain name, I might consider it.  But not 30,000 times more.  I just 
> run my own family network.  
> 
> 
> My bank balance pretty much controls which of my delusions I can entertain :-)
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> This communication may not represent my employer's views,
> if any, on the matters discussed.
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 10:56:24 AM
> Subject: Single Registrant TLD
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Just checking.
> 
> The contention by some on the VIWG has been that I am deluded when I argue that 
> the NCSG, especially some of its institutional members have no interest in 
> seeing Single Registrant TLD (.ngo for want of a better name) where the names 
> could be distributed internally, without use of a registrar, to employees or 
> members.
> 
> Can anyone confirm my delusion?  Are their institutional members who think this 
> sort of thing should exist - even if their name in not a famous brand?
> 
> thanks
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
>