Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

> Dear John,
>
> I would agree with option 1 if the "few" new gTLDs added were operated
> by more than one registry, representing all models.  To do otherwise, i.e.
> to add TLDs operated only by CORE or Name.Space or others would not
> only be unfair to those who have invested time, money, and resources
> in building and innovating new TLD-oriented DNS infrastructure and
> management, it would also be useless in a determining which models
> of administering the namespace are more or less feasable than others.

I would like to note an example that comes to mind:
-Two factions are discussing on what side of the road it is best to drive.
One side says it has to be the left, the other says it has to be the right.
The mediator says that we should allow both, and this way we can see the
merits of each system.

I agree that if a few gTLDs are added, having them all run by the same
registry company would not be good, at least politically... CORE is an
association of REGISTRARS. They don't give a damn who runs a TLD as long as
they can do registrar services for that TLD.
I believe that ANY "TLD-oriented DNS infrastructure and management" is
better suited to be on the registrar side than on the registry side. I
haven't seen any registry out there publicizing the extensive development it
has done on BIND or other similar software... So, I find that statement a
bit empty, though with a beautiful ring.
Of course, the bias is obvious. Speaking on behalf of name.space that stakes
a claim to TLDs that it (as IOD) says it owns, this type of statement is
understandable.

> With this in mind, I propose that if such a recommendation as option 1
> is agreed to, then it be modified to state that a reasonable number of
> new gTLDs should be added to the ROOT from each of the presently
> operational registries (there are several), representing different
> economic and business models across the board.  Preference should
> be given to TLDs that are "populated" without respect to the number.
> ("populated" means TLDs which have clients holding active SLDs).
> Option 1 should also not exclude the recognition of additional TLDs,
> nor unreasonably delay the introduction of them.

The only TLDs that are "populated" apart from those in the IANA (ICANN?)
roots. Remember that we are talking about what we want to put into those
very roots... Anything else is trying to get unfair pre-stacking of the
deck.

> To also satisfy those who are "TLD-phobic", it should also be added
> that each registry have a stated dispute and famous name policy, not
> necessarily a uniform one, and an openly queryable whois database.

With this part I agree completely. I would actually state PREFERABLY a
uniform famous name & dispute policy, but that's my preference.

Yours, John Broomfield.