RE: [wg-c] compromise proposal

[Jean-Michel Becar <Jean-Michel.Becar@etsi.fr>]

A quick response

Why not to follow the registrar test bed process and let's start with one
TLD per registry:

1- Create a "charter" for the test bed registries: 
	Technical aspects
	Human ressources
	Finances ......
- Something close to the test bed registrar accreditation and during the
test bed period review this document

2- Call for applications: Select 5 test bed registries

3- Make a call for an neutral "kind of interop center" to test the
registration and the technical process Or call for registrars to start the
registration in the new TLDs

3- Run the test bed for a first period of 4 months, 

4 - Check if everything is running well 


The only problem I left, and I think will be the most difficult to fix: Who
will decide which TLD will be introduced? The ICAN board? The registries
itself? the DNSO ?


Jean-Michel Bécar
becar@etsi.fr
http://www.etsi.org
E.T.S.I. Project Manager
Tel	: +33 (0)4 92 94 43 15
Mobile  : +33 (0)6 82 80 19 31
Fax      	: +33 (0)4 92 38 52 15



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:weinberg@mail.msen.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 05:46
> To: wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: [wg-c] compromise proposal
> 
> 
> 	Some quick responses to questions people have asked:
> 
> 	It seems to me sensible that, in this sort of limited initial
> rollout, each new registry should be restricted to a single gTLD.  
> (Jean-Michel Becar, as well as Roeland, urged this in our earlier
> discussion.)  Six to ten new gTLDs, thus, would mean six to ten new
> registries.  Two caveats:  (1) If Roeland is correct and 
> ICANN can't in
> fact find that many qualified entities seeking to be 
> registries, then I
> expect it would want to rethink this limitation.  (2) In any 
> event, after
> the initial rollout, once ICANN has moved on to Stage Two, it 
> would make
> sense for it to establish procedures not only to admit additional
> registries, but also to allow existing registries to add 
> additional TLDs.
> 
> 	I suspect that this formulation helps answer Chris's question as
> well.  With the opportunity to authorize six to ten new registries, if
> ICANN excludes any major player, it won't be for lack of a 
> slot to put it
> in.
> 
> 	I saw your "Back to the charter post," Ross, and it was 
> a big part
> of the history that I relied on in trying to put my 
> compromise together.
> (I apologize for not giving you credit.)  I tried to make my proposal
> simpler and shorter.  I figured that the more components a 
> proposal has,
> the more sticking points there are, and the harder it is to secure
> broad-based agreement.
> 
> Jon
> 
> 
> Jonathan Weinberg
> co-chair, WG-C
> weinberg@msen.com
> 
>