Re: [wg-c] new TLDs

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

All,

> That competition could take the form of self-defined and self-imposed
> limitations on the business that a registry for a TLD might accept.  But
> that's the registry's business, not ICANN's.

On a slightly personal note, I would sincerely hope that ICANN provide new
registry operators with the same liberal grant of determination that they
did when they outlined the initial accreditation guidelines. 

As long as the new gTLD registries meet a set of minimum acceptable
standards, regardless of how liberal or strict they may be, that the
registry be allow to determine their own business model and operational
standards.

This philoshophy has allowed;

	* CORE to extend on their initial operating goals and provide
	their constituents with a viable alternative to the promised
	gTLDS.	

	* Namezero to offer free SLD registrations in exchange for
	"eyeball time".

	* Register.com to move from NSI Premier Partner status to a
	viable, IPO bound entity

	* Melbourne IT to conduct one of the most promise offerings that
	the ASX has seen.

	* thousands of ISPs around the world the opportunity to -make
	money- from SLD registrations instead of acting as a pass-through
	for NSI.

Despite the obvious warts, there is truly *real* competition in the
current gTLD namespace. I can only pray the the current ICANN board
allows for the same freedom with new gTLDs.

Point? New gTLD registries should be allowed to determine the charter for
the gTLDs that they operate.

Ross Wm. Rader
Director, Assigned Names Division
TUCOWS.com Inc.
ross@tucows.com
t. (416) 239-9095 x 335
f. (416) 239-8409

**Note: Please update your 
address books - I will only 
be reading "ross@tucows.com" 
& "ross@opensrs.org" in the 
new year. Thanks!**