Re: [wg-c-1] Wecome to Drafting Committee 1

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@ebarn.com>]

WG-C Charter indicates that our mandate is to arrive at consensus on the
following questions;

1. Should there be new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs)? If yes: How many?
Which? At which speed should they be deployed and in which order? What
should be the mechanism for developing new gTLDs after all these are
deployed. Should each new gTLD have a specific charter?

2. What should the registration and data maintenance process and regulation
be?.

3. How should the new gTLDs be managed? What should the registry(ies) be
like? Is it mandatory to have a new registry(ies)? Why? Does the structure
proposed comply with worldwide concepts of anti-trust law? What information
should be made public by the registry(ies) and how? Obligations of the
registry(ies).

Therefore it is completely reasonable for DC-1 to discuss and advise on what
the general consensus is on the questions raised in Javier's initial message
concerning our proposed direction.

With all respect, might I suggest that there are likely more suitable forums
to discuss the issues which are so clearly important to you.

-RWR



----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher Ambler <cambler@iodesign.com>
To: Ross Wm. Rader <ross@ebarn.com>; <wg-c-1@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, July 09, 1999 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-c-1] Wecome to Drafting Committee 1


> In that case, is it appropriate for this group to discuss pricing for
> new TLDs? Perhaps we should also talk about trademark issues
> with respect to new TLDs. I suspect we also need to decide on
> business models for new registries, how many employees they
> may have, and what currency they may charge.
>
> If this issue is relevant, then I suspect we should discuss which
> TLDs NSI keeps. Maybe take .net away from them?
>
> There are some issues that are not within the scope of this
> group, and I would argue that we've found one.
>
> --
> Christopher Ambler
> Personal Opinion Only, of course
> This address belongs to a resident of the State of Washington
> who does not wish to receive any unsolicited commercial email
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ross Wm. Rader <ross@ebarn.com>
> To: Christopher Ambler <cambler@iodesign.com>; <wg-c-1@dnso.org>
> Sent: Friday, July 09, 1999 12:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [wg-c-1] Wecome to Drafting Committee 1
>
>
> > I respect your vested interest in this process Christopher, however
> without
> > discussion, it is impossible for this process to move forward. Deeming
the
> > exploration of the ramifications of this question inappropriate not only
> > limits the effectiveness of this process, but does a serious disservice
to
> > the interests represented by the WG and our responsibility to the entire
> > network.
> >
> > Ross Wm. Rader
> > TUCOWS/Domain Direct
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Christopher Ambler <cambler@iodesign.com>
> > To: <wg-c-1@dnso.org>
> > Sent: Friday, July 09, 1999 2:53 PM
> > Subject: Re: [wg-c-1] Wecome to Drafting Committee 1
> >
> >
> > > > b) What should the new gTLDs, if any, be?
> > >
> > > This question is wholly inappropriate. This group should not be in the
> > > position to determine the actual TLD names. This is a business
decision
> > > on the part of the registry. This group should be concerned with the
> > > operational parameters of adding new gTLDs, reasonable limits to
> > > avoid technical problems, and reasonable criteria to avoid
overloading.
> > >
> > > Christopher
> > >
> >