[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-c] Re: your mail
> >I believe that this would be rather similar to starting the house with the
> >roof. Your position "choose the registries" and then get them to choose
> >they want to run results in a situation in that what exists is there
> >those registries have chosen it to be so, in other words, the situation
> >would be a product of the will of the registries. The position "choose the
> >TLDs" creates a situation where the entities running the registry are just
> >filling in an operational need, in other words, it is much less unlikely
> >us to wind up in a situation favourable to the registries just for the heck
> >of it.
> Okay, I'll accept your position, though I don't agree completely. As a
> middle-ground, then, I'd suggest that they go hand-in-hand. When a registry
> steps up and says, "We meet the objective criteria ICANN has set down,"
> they also specify the TLD that they intend to run, state any information
> that is relevant, and perhaps give a charter for it, should it be
> decided that charters are part of the procedure.
> But if I say registry then TLD, and you say TLD and then registry, then I
> see a compromise in saying both at the same time.
What you are proposing is still that the TLDs come from the registries. A
true middle ground (which I'm not happy with either) would be on the one
hand create/validate a list of registries, on the other hand create a list
of TLDs and then just share out randomly the TLDs amongst the registries.
A sort of blind allocation. Just for the record, is the position "IOD must
run '.web' if this gTLD exists" at all negotiable?
Yours, John Broomfield.