Re: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed

["Mark C. Langston" <mark@bitshift.org>]

On Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 10:47:58AM -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> Selecting names before selecting registries is putting the cart well before
> the horse.
> 
> What if a name selected is .ATT?

Are we now to apply the IP constituency's demands to TLDs as well?


> 
> What if AT&T wants to run .ATT but it's not selected?

Too bad?  The fact that AT&T exist does not give them the right
to be a registry, have a TLD, and so on.

> 
> What if the names selected are .u4x, .hhrhr, and .w83hjf?
> 

Then prospective registries may or may not make proposals to run
one of them.  If nobody volunteers to host a TLD, scrap the string
and find a new one.  You're thinking as is ICANN were going to force 
companies to run TLDs;  I'm arguing from the opposite position.


> The middle-road solution is to set down objective criteria that a registry
> must meet (much like was done for registrars), and accept applications
> based upon that criteria. Each application will also contain the single TLD
> that the applying registry wishes to run, based on their business plan and
> marketing data.
> 

I'm perfectly happy with that.  I'm just saying that the selection
process for the initial (and future) TLDs should be completely
seperate from this process.  Then, after the TLDs have been agreed
upon, if a registry so wishes, it can present exactly the proposal you
just described, given that the TLD is in the pool agreed upon.  If
not, too bad.  

-- 
Mark C. Langston
mark@bitshift.org
Systems & Network Admin
San Jose, CA