Re: [wg-c] The scope of gTLDs

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>]

At 11:52 PM 3/15/00 -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>         It's correct, I think, that a TLD that has its use defined so as to
>exclude potential registrants has a different "administrative schema" than
>one that does not.  The only question that divides us, rather, is one of
>terminology.  IAHC suggested that a chartered TLD should not be called a
>"gTLD."  The Names Council, OTOH, didn't follow that terminology in setting
>up this WG:   In tasking the WG to decide whether "each new gTLD [should]
>have a specific charter," it made clear its own understanding that
>chartered as well as non-chartered (non-country-code) TLDs are
>appropriately called "gTLDs."


There is a nicely "Through the Looking Glass" quality to the nature of the 
Names Council tasking.  So, I guess this means that we now have to worry 
about .MIL and the rest of the chartered TLDs.

Given this working group's considerable history of making progress, 
addition of a juggling act between chartered and unchartered TLDs will 
doubtless add minimal, further delay...

d/


=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker  <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA