Re: DNS and potential energy

["Martin Hannigan" <hannigan () verneglobal com>]

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 () vacation karoshi com <bmanning () vacation karoshi com>
To: Joe Abley <jabley () ca afilias info>
Cc: nanog () nanog org <nanog () nanog org>; Joe Greco <jgreco () 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