RE: [wg-c] Recap from past threads...

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> I thought that we had already hashed through a lot of these
> points a few
> weeks back...(and I'm just as guilty of rehash as the next)

Agreed.

> To recap past threads ("Eureka?" "Public resources - Reply")
>
> - reclamation and retender is in the best interests of sld
> holders if the
> registry is not performing up to the specification of a
> contract between
> the registry and ICANN.

This is an excellent point. But, it is easier to rename than to
renumber, by a bunch. I don't think SLD owners would hesitate to move to
another TLD, on another registry, if there were such a beast.

> - TLDs can be held as IP until such time that the contract between the
> registry is pulled by ICANN for non-performance or insolvency.

This point has some serious legal chuck-holes.

> - the contract between the registry and ICANN must be
> strongly worded and
> extremely concise so as to eliminate all possible confusion as to
> intepretation and rights of either party.

This is a valid principle for any contract.In fact, KISS  ... gotta love
it!

> - that the number of TLDs a registry can operate must, at
> least at first,
> be limited in number but not so limited as to disallow the
> incumbent NSI's
> participation in the process.

Not quite. I wasn't considering NSI participation at all. Why? They are
already a TLD registry. In fact, they have three of them now. I rather
doubt that they would fail to pass a solvency test and the SLA I had in
mind uses NSI as the baseline model, and enhances from there.

> I think that this is where Roeland, Chris, William and I got
> to before the
> straw vote...

Since then, these debates have convinced me that the emphasis needs to
be on registries, not TLDs. That our fuzziness stems from confusing
these different issues (TLD vs Registry). I don't believe that there is
too much disagreement with this view.