Re: [wg-c] registry contracts

[Eric Brunner <brunner@world.std.com>]

Jon,

A question on your larger point summation prior to points 1 & 2:

Are we discussing the characteristics of some TLD's associated registry in
the 6-10 group, or the properties of registries independent of whether they
are in this initial group, or any subsequent one(s)?

The phrase "simply banning them" seems to be a very corse granularity tool,
and open-ended. I thought the issue was did we have to yeild to B Group to
get anything done, and specifically to elect one or all of the B Group's
for-profits. 

Personally I don't think any of the current B Group are good candidates
for partnering (who does?), so unless I missed some capitalization and
ownership disclosures, I suggest we invite AT&T, IBM, Microsoft and their
peers to the table. Amateur Hour will be over.

My preference of course, is to do the non-profit course of action with all
the seriousness of purpose and resources at our disposal, and ensure that
the first cohort of new gTLDs are useful, not just a muddle.

I also have an interest in getting the fundamental issue of title to the
registry data sorted out. If any of the B Group actually ceeded the point
that the data is in the public trust and not private property, I missed
it.

Eric