RE: Statements against

From: []
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 12:26 PM

I have to ask if any of these people who advocate the approach
have been in the business long enough to have diagnosed
problems caused
by "I've got the Sep 1 hosts.txt, but you've go the July 15
and they've
got the Sep 22" version.

I *thought* we learned our lesson. Apparently not.

We did, that's why we use DNS. As long as we practice collision avoidance,
we won't have any problems. However, those that intentionally collide must
be made to pay for it. ICANN, by flat-out ignoring the existing RSCs,
basically told the rest of the world that it is okay for everyone else to
ignore each other too. Had ICANN even tried to include the existing RSCs, we
would now have new, non-colliding, TLDs.(IMHO)

Personally, from my vantage point, the Internet co-opetition model is
collapsing. Co-operation is a tit-for-tat game and no one is going to play
without some "quid pro quo". ICANN wants it all one-way and that isn't going
to happen anytime soon. In fact, such policy stance encourages polarization
and fragmentation of the market/community. This is what gave rise to the
opportunity that is trying to exploit. Inclusive co-opetition would
not have prevented the rise of, but it would have given them strong
encouragement to NOT have colliding TLDs.

BTW: Co-opetition ::= cooperative competetion.(coined elsewhere)