Re: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed

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

On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 10:18:53AM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
> I agree strongly with Bret Fausett's post about why TLD proposals need to be
> linked to specific registry proposals. I would think it self-evident, for
> example, why labor unions should have real control over who runs .union. If
> that means "ownership," (and it does) so be it.

Ok, so which union organization gets granted the golden goose?  UFW?
AFL-CIO?  Teamsters?  UAW?

Name any entity, and I'm fairly sure I could come up with at least two
entities who would purport to be the 'correct' group to control it.

Besides, this is irrelevant.  All I proposed was:


1)  A round in which TLD are proposed and selected, giving us a TLD pool.

2)  A roung in which registries petition to control TLDs in that pool.


In round 2, do you honestly think ICANN is going to give .union to
some unknown entity?  Or are you afraid that the entity that you believe
'should' control the TLD won't be aware of the process?  If that's the
case, the problem is not the procedure I outlined.  The problem is 
one of communication.  Perhaps the group you think should control the
TLD doesn't want or can't handle control.  What then?  They farm it out
to some 3rd party and forget about it, and that 3rd party starts doing
all sorts of things with the TLD you hadn't intended.  And since we've
not come up with a solution for how to handle removing control of a
TLD from a registry to date, that puts us in a tricky situation, no?



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