[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-c] Short Position Paper
I like the thrust of your paper and most of its details. A few concerns:
At 06:03 PM 10/8/1999 , Kent Crispin wrote:
>1) Five to nine new TLD names be approved forthwith with the intent
>that they be run as totally open gTLDs. No further open gTLD names
>should be approved until a process for approval of "chartered" or
>"sponsored" TLDs is in place, and at least as many "chartered" or
>"sponsored" TLDs are approved.
Why should chartered be in any way tied to unchartered? (The concern isn't
about whether to have chartered, but rather the coupling.)
>2) ICANN should publish a Request For Proposal for registry
>operators. The goal of this RFP would be the selection of at least
>five independent registry operators. At least one registry operator
>should be selected from each ICANN geographical region.
You are assuming one name per registry?
This means no economies of scale for their operation. Why not do number of
assignments on a par with what NSI already has?
Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA <mailto:email@example.com>