Re: [wg-c] Re: [wg-c-1] First question

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

I hope everyone on this working group understands that we are well beyond
the point where any interest or faction can put forward their own private
agenda and expect it to be taken seriously as a product of a consensus
working group.

By the way, there is no mandate in the White Paper that all new registries
must be shared registries. The most important and obvious decision of the
WP was that it would not make this decision, and would leave it to the new
company.

Kent Crispin disingenuously wrote:

>                 With the above model in mind, I propose the following:
>
>   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.
>
>   2) That a request for proposal for registry operators be tendered
>   quickly.  The goal of this rfp would be for three independent
>   registry operators from three different regions of the world to
>   operate six gTLD registries, two per operator.
>
>   3) That ICANN support the standardization effort in the IETF for a
>   shared registry protocol, and that the six new registries all use
>   this protocol.
>
>   4) That the new registries operate according to the public
>   resource model described above.
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain