Re: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises...

["Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>]

Does anyone really think that floating test TLDs that have no semantic 
content at all is a meaningful test of anything?  There are at least some
potential applicants for SLD names whose interest is a function of the
differentiation of the name space.  If all we're doing is creating room for
new SLDs which are as indistinguishable from the existing sets as 
800, 888, and 877 phone numbers are from each other, then the exercise
has been a waste of time and we should own up to it.

KJC

>>> "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@ebarn.com> 09/14/99 11:51AM >>>
Exactly - or something like .tucows - which I'm not advocating as there are
IP issues associated with that particular name, but the point is that there
are bazillions of gTLDs that can be used to test on without affecting the
competitive landscape one iota. Maybe .rader would be a better example, or
.test1, .test2 etc. Moving from the test tld to a real one can't be that
difficult no matter how you slice it.

{snip}

**********************************************************************
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
**********************************************************************