[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs
> Sounds great to me. Since NSI gets 7 more years of
> exclusivity in .com, new registries also get 7 years
> of exclusivity. When .com goes up for rebid, so do
> new TLDs.
> Don't like this plan? Change .com, and the new TLDs
> will have to follow as well.
> NSI gets nothing more than new TLDs do, and vice
> versa. Anything else is unfair trade, and subject
> to legal trouble. Let's avoid it.
> Christopher Ambler
My personal OPINION is that as long as we have this type of "we shall not be
moved" attitude, the stalemate will continue for ummmm 7 years.
You don't want a ".web" put out for an open and fair tender, and others
(myself for one) don't want a license to be granted to IOD in a draconian
fashion. My position on how I feel gTLDs should be run at the registry level
is not going to change (shared registrar model, low profile backoffice,
regular rebid on an open basis) is not going to change. As your position
seems to be based on the fact that NSI has it as you would want it, then it
seems that your position falls flat on its face in 7 years and we revert to
the other position (the fair one).
Personally if I am presented with the choice of:
a) fairness in 7 years and stalemate interim
b) fairness in 7 years and granting monopolies in the interim
I would glumly choose b.
Now, what amazes me is that on the basis of it, you seem to accept the fact
that the current NSI situation is unfair, yet you demand the same treatment.
Fortunately, that tacit affirmation that it would be an unfair situation
does weaken the "gimme '.web'" position.
If you TRULY do a registrar/registry split for IOD, and it is the IOD
registrar that has the current client database, that registrar would be
demanding ANY method to have ".web" inserted in the legacy roots, which
would considerably weaken a "it's mine" attitude from the IOD registry.