Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 18-Apr-2000 John Charles Broomfield wrote:
> I take it you mean the generic TLDs (I *can* see
> limited/chartered/restricted/
> whatever-you-call-them TLDs being run by a single registrar-registry system,
> but -as I keep saying- it's a completely different set of issues).
> We haven't agreed on the contrary either (that generic TLDs could be run in
> another fashion). I am sure we would NOT receive consensus on the principle
> that generic TLDs could be run by a single entity registry-registrar. We've
> had that model, and we've seen how it didn't work (NSI holding on to
> com/net/org), and we've fought very hard to oblige it to open up. gTLDs run
> in that way are just not going to happen IMHO. The dreaded expression of
> "lock-in" rears its head way to high to allow that.

The lock-in argument has been effectively refuted by the FTC's experts on the
subject, comparing competitive registries to what NSI had under com/net/org is
a fable, since NSI was not subject to competition at the registry level, and
yes, actually, many of the caveats of our consensus here in this group have
been that there be a diversity of model, not a single forced model.

 
> Your statement that we have not yet agreed on all new [generic] registries
> being run on a shared registry model is only half correct. What we haven't
> yet agreed on is how they are to be run (which is why there is such lack of
> progress). Personally I feel that one of the major blocking points up to now
> *had* always been IOD asserting exclusive ownership over ".web". It seems
> that
> things are now changing, and we *may* have a way forward.

Your analysis of the problem is not completely correct.  While I do blame IOD's
claim on .web for being a blocking point, and one that can and will damage the
chance for a free and open process for the ongoing expansion of the namespace,
I do not agree that it has been the major blocking point to introduction of new
gTLDs at this point, which is what you statement above appears to say. 

- --
William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
http://userfriendly.com/
GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/

iD8DBQE4/K0I8zLmV94Pz+IRAkxkAKCD4xZ2nhRTE4GA/16GXveughr8LACeNTaE
z6t7Z7+iIjMoVV+f+yvtYuk=
=kp3/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----