Re: [wg-c] GTLD Straw poll

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

>i find that approach not at all practical. the lottery concept makes
>absolutely no sense either.


Absolutely - to me, this sounds like the easy way out for WG-C...

>
>the best approach i feel is a "bid" basis for managing registries . you
set
>up an evaluation committee which consists of primarily technical-oriented
>persons to assure that proper resources & technology is there for each
>prospective bidder and place the emphasis on quality & efficiency as well
as
>cost to deliver the services.

This process without a proper bid and tender procedure in place fully
consitutes a travesty.


>
>the concept of shared registries is also very intriguing as well as it
could
>create "healthy" competition
>between registry mgt. companies co-managing  the same gtld


Shared registries in my mind is are out of control at best. With a proper
grant, competition could be ensured through a limited term within the bid
and tender process.

-RWR

>----- Original Message -----
>From: A.M. Rutkowski <amr@netmagic.com>
>To: Kevin J. Connolly <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>; <wg-c@dnso.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 8:04 PM
>Subject: Re: [wg-c] GTLD Straw poll
>
>
>> At 07:54 PM 8/17/99 , Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
>> >in the root.  That's what we're here to discuss; that's
>> >what you keep trying to pull the discussion away from;
>>
>> OK.  We have lots of common agreement.
>>
>> Why not agree the new TLDs are brand names, let
>> the legacy maintainers hold onto their brands,
>> and parcel out the rest by some mutually agreeable
>> fair method (e.g., lottery)
>>
>>
>> --tony
>>