RE: [wg-c] non/for-profit

["Rod Dixon" <rod@cyberspaces.org>]

I do not recall the rationale supporting Kent's position regarding the
initial rollout, but I think if the WG-C arrives at a consensus that the new
TLDs support both profit (and chartered) and not-for-profit registries, then
there is no obvious reason not to extend that position to the "testbed" or
initial rollout period. In my mind, we either support the two business
models or we don't. Let's not give new meaning to the testbed/rollout
period. I do not view that period as experimental; experiments can be just
as detrimental to the stability of the DNS as making the wrong initial
decisions. Nonetheless, we are tasked with the job of making the best
initial decisions/recommendations as the rules of consensus permit.
Consequently, I think the initial rollout (6- 10 new TLDs) should look as
much like the subsequent rollout (however many more TLDs are established) as
possible.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
Jonathan Weinberg
Sent: Friday, November 19, 1999 11:14 AM
To: Kent Crispin; wg-c@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-c] non/for-profit




	Kent -- I understood you to have stated in LA that in your view the
initial rollout should consist of nonprofit open registries, but that later
"chartered" registries might be for-profit.  Do I have that right?  On the
nonprofit-in-the-initial-rollout point, when I raised this issue on the
list, my rough count was that Kent, Craig, John Broomfield, Dave C and
David M were supportive, while Chris, Roeland, Milton, William, Timothy
Denton and Tony were opposed, and Eric and Bob C fell in the "no for-profit
TLDs ever" camp.  Please correct me if I have anyone wrong.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, WG-C
weinberg@msen.com


At 08:34 AM 11/19/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 10:01:36AM -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>> 	The list has been uncharacteristically quiet over the last couple of
days,
>> which is refreshing, but less than ideal from the perspective of getting
>> our work done.  The proposition has been stated and defended on the list
>> that the establishment of a mixed system of for-profit and nonprofit
>> registries would not be problematic.  There has been little opposition.
>
>My impression of the consensus is that for-profit registries might be
>OK in the future, but for the initial rollout registries should be
>non-profit.
>
>>  Do
>> we, in fact, have rough consensus on this point?  All of you who believe
>> that the inclusion of for-profit registries would be unacceptable --
please
>> stand up and be counted.
>
>Here.
>
>> (Certainly that view has been expressed on the
>> list in the past.)
>
>How, then, is it that you have suddenly come to what I consider the
>startling conclusion that we are near consensus on this particular
>issue? Are those past opinions to be ignored because they were in the
>past? I haven't seen anybody recanting those positions.
>
>--
>Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
>kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>
>