[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises...
> Does anyone really think that floating test TLDs that have no semantic
> content at all is a meaningful test of anything? There are at least some
> potential applicants for SLD names whose interest is a function of the
> differentiation of the name space. If all we're doing is creating room
> new SLDs which are as indistinguishable from the existing sets as
> 800, 888, and 877 phone numbers are from each other, then the exercise
> has been a waste of time and we should own up to it.
Depending on what our goals for the test-bed are, rgTLDs (really generic
TLDs) can be extremely useful. They will allow us to quickly and effectively
judge the technical and operation impact of a multiple gTLD registry
scenario, while at the same time allowing the participants to easily
repurpose their infrastructure when the testbed ends. Further, it minimizes
(or perhaps even eliminates) IODs concerns about restraint of trade.
In my mind this allows everyone to achieve their stated objectives without
miring the process with overwhelming political and legal concerns.
As far as SLD registrants go, they can be easily and effectively simulated
for the purpose of the test-bed. All major software companies do this with
new product releases - they use beta testers to simulate real customers.