Re: [wg-c-3] Notes on new gTLD registries

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

>   The registry is operated as a shared registry on a not-for-profit
>   cost-recovery basis.  The registry operator, however, may be a
>   for-profit company, operating the registry under contract to 
>   ICANN.  The registry operator may be removed for cause, and the 
>   contract would be rebid on a periodic basis.  

I completely reject that this is either the case currently or needs to be
the case. The for-profit / non-profit argument has been ongoing for
years, with no consensus whatsoever. The obvious solution is to
allow registries to self-select their business model, within reasonable
objective criteria. 

Define the OPERATIONAL limits, not the BUSINESS limits.
 
>   Since the data in the registry is considered a public resource, it
>   should be escrowed under different control from the registry
>   operator, and in widely dispersed jurisdictions and locations.

The data in the registry is not a public resource. That may be Kent's
opinion. I don't share it.

>   1) Six new gTLDs be approved immediately.  I would propose that
>   they be chosen from the IAHC gTLD set; and that CORE relinquish any
>   intellectual property rights they may have acquired in these names
>   to ICANN. 

I reject this proposal on the grounds that the TLDs themselves should not
be chosen for a registry. Rather, a registry should be judged upon 
objective criteria and, if it meets these criteria, shall select the TLD
that it wishes to run based on its own business model and marketing
plan.

>   4) That the new registries operate according to the public 
>   resource model described above.

Registries should not have business models imposed upon them.
Period.

These suggestions also seem to be outside the scope of the problem
to be discussed, as outlined on the DNSO web site.

Christopher