Hi Thackque,

Technically it is no more difficult to run a private TLD that any other. 
It doesn't require a separate root server. It's just a regular BIND 
entry. Technically it's amazingly simple. Setting up MYFAMILY is as easy 
as setting up MYFAMILY.NET.

The only complexity I see is in fighting over who gets what name. That's 
the part that scares me. The policy end of it. Who gets the TLD MONEY? 
How do you figure that out?

On 7/20/2010 9:16 AM, 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.
>
>
>
>
>