RE: [wg-c] Exclusions

["Roeland M. J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

It is to this end that I published my paper and why the Word document
original is also available at
http://www.dnso.net/library/dnso-tld.mhsc-position.shtml

Feel free to cut, paste and mutilate.<grin> I intended it to be a running
start.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Weinberg
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 7:19 PM
> To: Rick H Wesson
> Cc: wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] Exclusions
>
>
> 	Sounds like a good idea to me.  (No, I'm not
> volunteering to help develop
> the document.  But I encourage other people to do so.)
>
> Jon
>
>
> At 06:32 PM 3/16/00 -0800, Rick H Wesson wrote:
> >
> >Karl,
> >
> >it would appear that a document specifiing the requirements for
> >applicatants to run a registry would would be within the
> scope of this
> >working group.
> >
> >anyone interested in helping to develop a draft document?
> >
> >-rick
> >
> >On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> > I think that it's only fair that any company/entity that
> is a registrar
> >> > should not be eligible for inclusion in the testbed phase for new
> >> > registries. After the testbed, they should be allowed to
> apply, but
> >> > to give a company testbed status in BOTH the registrar and
> >> > registry phases is unfair to other companies.
> >>
> >> Makes sense to me - Indeed I would go further and suggest
> that any person
> >> or company that has a significant interest in an already
> existing TLD (to
> >> my mind, *any* TLD, whether gTLD, ccTLD, or otherwise) ought to be
> >> encouraged to fully focus on developing the asset it
> already has and not
> >> be permitted to obtain a second bite from the TLD apple.
> >>
> >> By "significant" interest, I would mean anyone/company
> that is a registry
> >> or registrar for a TLD or any person who has a meaningful
> control power
> >> over such a registry or registrar.
> >>
> >> Thus, for example, I would not want NSI or any of the
> current registries
> >> to have a bid for new TLDs.  Nor would, for instance,
> Verisign or SAIC,
> >> given their interest in NSI.
> >>
> >> 		--karl--
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>