> what do you think of as "expensive"? Anything that has 1000% or higher markup. There is also another kind of expense: solving the SiteFinder problem took a lot of time, public outcry and moral outrage from a large group of people. It would have been nice to just scoot over to a competitor. These are the arguments for providing competition in a single namespace, as opposed to trying to solve problems by legislation and public outcry. Probably won't help with the price of Norwegian beer though. >Both Milton Friedman and JM Keynes are dead now, ... Let's not torque the discussion off topic. Free market economics does not come to bear on the issue because there is no free market to speak of for registries. >Or in other words, if IBM wants to keep ibm.com then the root >must remain under the control of a single exclusive authority. Agreed. There should be a single logical root, with an entity that has exclusive authority over it. >However, to back up a step, what is it that you actually need/want? A quick question: Right now, we'd like to have a domain delegated to a large number (say 100+) of nameservers. The registrars we have gone through impose a limit on the number of nameservers they are willing to accept. Is this a limit stemming from the .COM registry, or is there a registrar out there that will let us delegate a .COM domain to a few hundred nameservers? (And no, not all nameservers need to be returned in response to every query. A random sampling would be fine). Gun. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf