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. > > > >