Re: [wg-c] Re: Importance of the Registry

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

I thought Jon's discussion was good, but I agree with Rod here.

Most existing proposals for new registries that I know about, both for-profit and
non-profit in nature, contemplate some sort of special feature or identity that would be
undermined by compulsory sharing. We received a reminder of this Friday with the
proposal regarding North American Aboriginals (.NAA) and the idea for a privacy-enhanced
TLD.

Shared registries are most appropriate for TLDs like dot com that are mass marketed,
commodity-type registration services. There may be room in the market for a lot more of
these, but I suspect that as the market develops most proposals for new entry will
involve attempts to occupy market niches.

Thus over the intermediate term I suspect that in a truly open, choice-driven
environment, non-shared TLDs would be the rule rather than the exception. I could be
wrong about that, but I don't want to establish any presumption in our recommendations
that makes it more difficult to establish non-shared registries than shared ones.

Rod Dixon wrote:

> With regard to question 1, I do not agree with your conclusion that ALL
> registires, with a noted "exception," should only support competitive
> registrars.
>
> I think what you refer to as an "exception" should be more fairly
> labeled an "alternative basis" for the establishment of a gTLD.

--
m i l t o n   m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
syracuse university          http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/