On Sun, 10 Jun 2001, JIM FLEMING wrote:

> As many people are aware, the "toy" IPv4 Internet is useful for
> doing "proof-of-concept" development of a TLD and all the needed
> infrastructure, prior to becoming a commercial fixture, set in
> bedrock on stable IPv6, IPv8 and/or IPv16 networks. As shown below,

What precisely do (g)TLDs have to do with the underlying network
infrastructure ? Nothing ? Thought so.

> Multiple "roots" are no longer needed. At best they are out-dated
> publishers of information about TLD Nameserver Clusters. Some people
> apparently still find it useful to depend on a "root", as opposed to
> finding the "dominant" TLD Clusters via simple software.

Am I to understand that you are advocating having multiple 'root' level
nameservers? Or that a process of 'natural selection' should be used to
determine which root level NS to use ?

> Multiple TLD Clusters are new. There is merit in having redundancy.
> Unfortunately, consumers will have to learn through their registrar
> or registry, that they would be prudent to register in BOTH TLD Cluster
> for the most reliable, stable service, with the widest reach. The
> SLD.TLD cluster is of course usually unique. How an end user's resolver
> locates the SLD.TLD Cluster does not impact the end-users's resolver
> interaction with the SLD.TLD Cluster.

So users should register with every registrar that offers a TLD ? Good for
the registrar, but hardly fair for the users... oh wait a second, you're
representing a registrar, not the users. I guess the logic is
self-explanatory...

Regards,

Saliya