Re: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal

["Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>]

At 12:22 12-08-99 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:

>ICANN and its DNSO are already suffering from charges
>that they have a predetermined agenda. The statements on
>your web site reinforce these kinds of fears. What was the
>basis for these statements?

Dear Professor Mueller:

Thanks for your thoughtful posting.  As I have written, we began notifying 
existing *applicants* (note that we at PSI *never* used the term 
"registrants* or *pre-registrants*), shortly after the White Paper.  We 
stopped taking new applications for a long, long time.  Some time this 
year, we advised potential applicants that we did not know when the gTLDs 
would be delegated.  We started accepting applications again, but without 
the nominal $15 charge.

We did not want to start accepting applications in the first place, but 
others were, so we needed to get something into our queue.  I just learned 
that Globalcomm is still showing themselves as a CORE members:-(

I feel that we have an obligation to those who made applications with 
us.  Let's say that .firm is not delegated to any registry.  Let's say that 
.corp is delegated --- and not to CORE.  In such a case, we would seek an 
arrangement with the .corp registry to be able to register in that registry 
--- at least until we had satisfied the needs of our prior applicants.

If you'll look at the newest version of our posting, you'll see we have we 
have used words such as "...  the first Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) 
*may be* delegated in October or November of 1999. CORE *hopes* that a 
non-controversial gTLD for personal use, *such as* .nom will the first 
delegated by ICANN (successor to IANA). It should be followed by others 
*such as* .firm, .shop, .info, .rec, and .arts."

The emphases I've added (*may be*, *such as* and *hopes*) are intended to 
contemplate that .per might be delegated rather than .nom --- or that .corp 
is delegated rather than .firm.

I'm sure you recognize that we are trying to describe a moving train;-{


>It should be clear from my posts on this list that I support
>entrepreneurship on the Internet. I view Core as one of
>many legitimate, competing registry/registrar consortia that could be
>accommodated--along with many other ideas--if we get our
>act together and create an open, accessible name space.

As you know by now, we entered this fray with nothing but the highest 
motives, not expecting to even apply for the lottery to be one of the 
chosen 28 members of CORE.  We share most of your concepts, though we lean 
very hard toward anti cybersquatting provisions.


>So let's stop re-fighting battles from 1997 and make it
>happen.
I'll drink to that, though some might think I'd drink to a falling 
leaf.  (No, I would *not* drink to a falling leaf --- unless it was a 
falling oak leaf on the head of a cybersquatter --- and that oak leaf came 
from our dining room table:-)

Personal regards,
BobC, who says, "Keep making us think".



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"One test is worth three expert opinions!"
Ulric B. Bray