[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises...
> >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
> >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
> >(or perhaps even eliminates) IODs concerns about restraint of trade.
> I do not believe that the constant harping and threatening behavior of a
> single participant has the slightest bearing on the consensus of the WG;
> and I do not believe that such concerns should have an impact on this
> WG's recommendations. Concerns about restraint of trade will probably
> have an impact on ICANN's final policy, but they should not color our take
> the questions whether there should be new gTLDs, how many there should be,
> and how to roll them out.
It's all about taking a responsible position as I learned last night. ;) Put
a different spin on it - it minimizes my concerns about restraint of trade.
Speaking strictly as a test-bed registrar for .com etc., I know for a fact
that we have suffered economic loss because we weren't selected as one of
the initial five registrars. I don't think for a second that there was an
alternative to the live test-bed process. Regardless, I place the blame not
with ICANN or another third party, but with us as we did not present a
properly compelling application to the selection committee. My point is that
we can construct a similar situation with this test-bed so that we are not
mired by the political/legal concerns and concentrating where we should be -
on the impact of our recommendations in a controlled environment.
> >In my mind this allows everyone to achieve their stated objectives
> >miring the process with overwhelming political and legal concerns.
> What about the objective of ascertaining the acceptance of/demand for new
> gTLDs? Doesn't the marketplace have some impact on whether there should
> be new gTLDs and how many there should be?
I submit that this is something that the market can determine for itself.
This is contingent on allowing the registry to select their gTLD as part of
the application submission process, but I don't think for a second that we
should be concerning ourselves with the success or failure of .knish during
the test-bed phase. The TLD will only be as successful as the registry
behind it. I think that this is a given.
> >As far as SLD registrants go, they can be easily and effectively
> >for the purpose of the test-bed.
> If the sole concern is beta-testing the registration systems, then I think
> engaging in an exercise in futility. Why in heaven's name should
> obtain our assistance and support in assuring that their systems actually
> When did this WG take on the role of configuring a beta test for the
> systems? Under the proposed approach, instead of setting policy, we're
> assisting these companies in receiving a gift of services.
Not at all - the quid pro quo for the "gift of services" is that ICANN will
have hard data on the performance and impact of our recommendations that
they can use to move forward in a sane and controlled manner with regards to
the post test-bed phase.
> >All major software companies do this with
> >new product releases - they use beta testers to simulate real customers.
> This really does go from bad to worse. And we _still_ don't know the
> to which this WG is or is not about to be prorogued by ICANN and/or the
> which really does render the whole exercise more than a little surreal.
Hey it's just an idea...