Re: [ifwp] Re: Proposal for a new ORSC/DNSO project

["Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>]

>This assumption that those who have, essentially, laid renegade claims to
TLD's
>with no basis for believing they would ever be added to the roots, should
have
>some prior claim and be considered a "backlog" for purposes of processing
new
>gTLD applications requires extensive discussion in itself before even
>considered such a proposal.

When you consider the fact that IANA encouraged these companies to set
up infrastructure and prove their registry, things change. It is in no way
unfair
to determine which companies are still running a registry, ensure that they
meet whatever criteria will be set down for new registries, and consider
them
the first wave. For example, are you going to deny that CORE is in this
list,
even though IANA presumably gave them the go-ahead to spend a million
dollars on infrastructure? Is that fair?

There is no "queue" of which you speak. To prove that, Image Online Design
is more than willing to have its .web registry be entered into the roots
LAST
of those companies currently operational. If, on the other hand, your
"queue"
refers to the actual TLD names, then there still isn't a "queue." Some
companies
have been running specific TLDs, and if another company were to come
along and be granted it, there would certainly be challenge to that action.
Remove the conflicts in name selection, as Stef is proposing, and you have a
list of companies that would be very polite in the root-entry order.

Finally, if there are any other companies planning on being a registry, I
have
to ask - where are they? Speak up, others are!

Christopher