DNS Scaling issues

[Jorge Amodio]

My pleasure Dave,

I don't know yet if the SSAC made or is planning to make a presentation or put
together an official statement about the results of the studies, but
by listening
at some of the board members, staff, and others from the ICANN community
it seems that the message is getting through.

I think the biggest issue will certainly come from the pressure that
is building up
on the commercial side, that besides any reasonable outcome of well thought
analysis, including the work to be done on trademarks and IP, this is for them
yet another sign saying "we are not ready for gTLDs yet".

I understand their concerns, and it has been a huge mistake from ICANN to
create such a level of expectation, where many folks on the commercial side took
too many things for granted and started rushing to the gold mountain without
knowing where the mountain is or if there it is even any gold there.

This will require an extra effort from other stakeholders, including NCUC to
assist in reducing some of the pressure that has been building up in the
gTLD program, and perhaps some counseling to the folks that have been
speculating to become instantly rich to deal with their frustration and
lack of a concrete timeline.

There is a lot of money to be make exploiting the name space (well until the
day a new technology or killer application replaces it), and non-commercial
folks can also benefit with the expansion of the name space.

But, the DNS system has been stable and relatively secure handling up to
date more than 113 million domains without counting those under ccTLDs
and few sponsored TLDs, rushing up the introduction of new gTLDs has
a potential chance of compromising this stability, and in that case we will all
lose and the gTLD program will have no credibility at all.

My .02
Jorge

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:26 AM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
>        Thank you for sharing that. As someone with a technical background,
> but who hadn't looked at these issues prior, I found it made a very solid
> case for a cautious approach.
>        Regards
>                David
>