Re: [wg-c] bounced message, reposted for ... and The limits of ...

["Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>]

At 00:32 12-11-1999 -0500, Eric Brunner wrote:
>So every bit of variety, useful, dubious, and daft, has to be squeezed
>into the space of 6-10, rather than just attempting to do 6-10 on a set
>of least concern. I don't think ICANN has as a fundamental part of its
>raison d'etre taking unnecessary risk, and Milt's ecumenicism appears to
>call for every distinct risk factor to be savored to the fullest during
>the first testbed period.

Dear Eric:  Well put:-)  BobC (Today's posting, Mark I, PST 07:00)

Dear Jonathan:  I can make two posting look like one.  Let me quote you:

  My take is this: Any TLD registry has the potential to
wield significant market power, to the extent that the TLD it controls is
more attractive, to some subset of users, than are the alternatives.
That's an especially powerful concern so long as there are only a
relatively small number of TLDs.  A for-profit registry is more likely than
a nonprofit registry...

I agree, if a for profit should be approved, it should be controlled as 
though it were a public utility, which it *is*.  That means reasonable 
profits and monitores level of service.

BobC (Mark I.5 posting)



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Advice to Chairpersons:
If a consensus nibbles...
*Set the hook!!!*

You may be consigned to telling your grandchildren about
    the big one that got away:-(