[45887] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ICANN - The Case for Replacing its Management
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Simon Higgs)
Wed Feb 27 03:05:41 2002
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020226223035.02eca3f8@oak.higgs.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:49:12 -0800
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>
In-Reply-To: <B8A180DA.5F0B%david.conrad@nominum.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
David,
At 06:13 PM 2/26/2002 -0800, David Conrad wrote:
>On 2/26/02 11:49 AM, "Simon Higgs" <simon@higgs.com> wrote:
> > That's the point. Two (or more) companies don't *HAVE* to fight for
> > identical flat space.
>
>Most people want to be able to get to the same server when they type the
>same domain name from two different places.
Yes. That's how it's supposed to work. What exactly is your point here?
>Sorry this doesn't conform with the way you want things to work.
Um... actually it does. You must be reading the Cliff notes for either Kent
Crispin's "Complete Idiot's Guide to Alt.Roots", or Stuart Lynn's "The
Emperor's Dress Code."
The bottom line is that expanding the name space with additional TLDs
solves this problem. Then "Two (or more) companies don't *HAVE* to fight
for identical flat space" - because they are each given unique space. Duh!
Holding onto an artificially constrained flat space makes things worse.
It's a really bad, bad, bad idea. Why would you even consider supporting
such a thing?
Best Regards,
Simon
--
DNS is not a sacred cow that cannot be replaced by something better.
