RE: [wg-c] compromise proposal

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

I thank you for the attributions, this seems reasonably acceptable
provided that there are definitive guidelines for new registries. Also,
the caveates must be covered with process. I really want the emphasis
placed on competent registries (Note my posting wrt TLDNS). We really
need to work out a minimum SLA for a registry and we should KISS it..

> 	Some quick responses to questions people have asked:
>
> 	It seems to me sensible that, in this sort of limited initial
> rollout, each new registry should be restricted to a single gTLD.
> (Jean-Michel Becar, as well as Roeland, urged this in our earlier
> discussion.)  Six to ten new gTLDs, thus, would mean six to ten new
> registries.  Two caveats:  (1) If Roeland is correct and
> ICANN can't in
> fact find that many qualified entities seeking to be
> registries, then I
> expect it would want to rethink this limitation.  (2) In any
> event, after
> the initial rollout, once ICANN has moved on to Stage Two, it
> would make
> sense for it to establish procedures not only to admit additional
> registries, but also to allow existing registries to add
> additional TLDs.

(I apologize for not giving you credit.)  I tried to make my proposal
> simpler and shorter.  I figured that the more components a
> proposal has,
> the more sticking points there are, and the harder it is to secure
> broad-based agreement.

Agreed.