what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora'sBox

Eric Brunner-Williams brunner at nic-naa.net
Mon Jun 30 19:36:27 UTC 2008

Peter Beckman wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Joe Greco wrote:
>> I see usefulness in having scopes that are local (city/village/etc),
>> state, country, and global.  There's no reason that you couldn't start
>> out local, and as you grew, get a state level domain 
>> (martyspizza.wi.us),
>> and if you went national (martyspizza.us), etc.  In many (most!) cases,
>> businesses do not make significant growth in a rapid fashion.
>  The selfish will abuse the lack of RFC1480 management and go straight to
>  martyspizza.us, even though they have one store, because it's 
> available at
>  the time.
> ...
For which, if you are so inclined, you may credit, or damn, NeuStar. The 
original bid to the US DoC did not envision the "dotless" or "flat" 
model displacing the "dotfull" or "hierarchical" model. The US DoC has 
not yet seen fit to solicit tenders from operators intending to offer a 
policy model other than that of the current operator. For those of you 
in the US, who think its worth doing something about, you've about three 
years to get your congress critter motivated to enable the DoC to find 
an alternative criteria to the one that allowed the incumbent operator 
to win the renewal. Some reason(s) why "flat" and all its "first-come, 
only-served" model is less useful than something else.

More information about the NANOG mailing list