Not sure if I'm explaining it right. A full name would be:

www.google.com. <- note the final period.

Although we don't type it - it's technically there. The "." is the root 
servers. The root servers then look at the TLD and refer the request to 
the TLDs servers i.e. com, net, org, info, biz etc.

But - if the TLD were private then the root servers would reference the 
private name server that could return an A record for the TLD itself. 
This if Google Inc. owned the "google" TLD then the user would oble have 
to type in google rather than google.com. And why not?

In order to do that you would need however registrars who would be able 
to register and sell private TLDs just like they sell .com domains. 
Essentially the TLD would be a domain. But it would be a domain off of 
the "." TLD technically.

Does everyone at least understand what I'm saying?



Avri Doria wrote:
> hi,
>
> i am afraid that one falls outside of the technical constraints for names.
>
> a.
>
> On 18 Mar 2010, at 11:27, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
>   
>> Alex Gakuru wrote:
>>     
>>> One finds a number of developing countries' registries equally guilty
>>> of hesitation in disclosing such their "business" (thus
>>> 'confidential') information and data. Never mind their much publicised
>>> 'public interest' purpose of existence. Some even (mis)use this status
>>> quo as a basis of charging consumers unreasonably high domain
>>> registrations fees.
>>>
>>> To solve this problem, the Consumer Interest Group has been exploring
>>> a new type of business model (for now just call it "consumer-owned
>>> registries") where motive for profit is essentially zero! Fees will be
>>> the closest to actual costs and any surplus income over expenditure
>>> -all of it! (i.e. no accumulated bank reserves) shall be used to
>>> promote public interest internet growth in developing regions.
>>>
>>> It means that we shall explore ways of impressing upon ICANN to waive
>>> the 185K, among others. If interested, then please join our mailing
>>> list where we'll have the conversation started soon.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>>  
>>>       
>> Yes Alex - there seems to be two models here. One is the traditional model offering public registration and all the complexities associated with that. In that model the $185k is justified because the hard part is the registrar part.
>>
>> However - another model is where you are just using the TLD for private name resolution and you and not offering public registration but rather allowing an organization to use it like a second level domain name. For example, .ibm, .microsoft, .google, .catholic, etc. That way - for example, instead of going to google.com you can just go to google. In this situation the .google TLD would be owned by google and they would control it just like they control google.com.
>>
>> In the second model the TLD is no more complex than running ant other standard name server. It would be equivelene to running a "." (nothing) TLD where instead of registering .com, .net .org or .info you would just register with "."
>>
>> You would need a registrar to handle the "." TLD.
>>