DNS and potential energy

Mon Jun 30 00:12:27 UTC 2008

This is currently a mostly capex-less exercise. I agree, the load is on operations, and likely at ICANN, VeriSign, and the DoC.  

We need way more detail than we have, but I hope all parties and the AC's move in a stewardship -and- commerce friendly direction with this. Even if it causes an evolution in the root -- which I believe it will. 

Best,

Marty

"Nothing like having a front row seat on the Internet".
      ---Mary Reindeau 

----- Original Message -----
From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com <bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com>
To: Joe Abley <jabley at ca.afilias.info>
Cc: nanog at nanog.org <nanog at nanog.org>; Joe Greco <jgreco at ns.sol.net>
Sent: Sun Jun 29 23:59:58 2008
Subject: DNS and potential energy

On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 02:14:58PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> 
> The only decision that is required is whether new generic top-level  
> domains are desired. If not, do nothing. Otherwise, shake as much  
> energy into the system as possible and sit back and let it find its  
> own steady state.
> 
> Joe

	possession and use of classV explosives is regulated in
	most jurisdictions.

	but if you think that if we pack enough C4 into the DNS
	and set it off, that we might find equalibrium, you might
	be right. :)  the result will still be a flat namespace,
	(perhaps a crater where the namespace was).

	one might legitimately argue that ICANN is in need of 
	some serious regulation....

	that can happen at that national level or on the international
	level.

--bill