Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven

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

On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 11:10:29AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> At 10:52 AM 4/10/00 -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote:
> >  I propose that we allow no pre-sold TLDs to become part of the
> >testbed, and I further propose that we re-evaluate this position once
> >the testbed period has ended.
> 
> Are you then, also, going to propose regulating the ways that registrars 
> maintain their financial records?  The temperature of their offices?
> 
> One of the more difficult aspects to this activity is being very careful 
> and consistent about what is NECESSARY for ICANN and registries to deal 
> with, and what is not.
> 
> Within the limits of concern about such things as mis-representations of 
> the registry, the business dealings between a registrar and its customers 
> are not reasonably the concern of the registry or ICANN.
> 
> 

I'm not saying this is an easy proposal to enforce.  But I stand by
the assertion that introducing pre-sold TLDs to the authoritative roots
under the pretense of expanding namespace is disingenuous because it
will not introduce additional namespace, it will simply introduce
already occupied namespace.




> >The IAHC 7, on the other hand, were of dubious value, were not in the
> >roots, and were only reachable by those willing to configure their
> >systems to handle multiple independent roots.  They should not have
> >been pre-sold as though they were going to be added to the roots
> >any day now.  However, if I recall the ad copy, that's how CORE was
> >pushing them.
> 
> Where and when did "CORE" push them, as opposed to some registrars that 
> belonged to CORE?
> 
> Please be careful to distinguish between activities of the association and 
> independent actions by association members.


Sorry.  Yes, this was pushed by the CORE registrars as individual entities
and not by CORE itself.  Sorry for any confusion.

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