Re: [wg-c] Schwimmer Post From Last Week

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

Harold:
These are indeed fruitful topics for discussion, but we have not yet reached
the "next stage." Let me remind the WG once again that we are in a public
comment period. I don't understand the point of moving forward until we
receive and assess the public comments.
--MM

Harold Feld wrote:

> Last week, Martin Schwimmer posted some fruitful topics for the
> next stage of discussion, to which I gave my detailed responses,
> on possible mechanisms for future implememntation.  Is it not
> worthwhile to take up this discussion now?  In response to Martin's
> questions, I proposed some specific TLDs I'd like to see
> (a personal TLD and a generic TLD such as .web to compete with
> .com, rather than some other sort of specific TLD such as .inc or
> .xxx or .pol).  I also suggested three methods for selecting new
> registries,
> based on existing FCC practice and suggested that registries should
> be free to set the method for chosing registrars (or even to act as both
> registry
> and registrar exclusively).
> [As I said at the time, I would argu that .com represented a special case
>
> due to its unique position.  Their is no need to "open" other TLDs by
> mandating
> a registry/registrar separation, any more than there is a need to force
> CLECs
> to unbundle their facilities.  Alternatively, a mix of open and
> proprietary TLDs
> would provide a good market test: do users prefer specific services to
> the danger
> of lock-in.]
>
> Is there any interest in pursuing any of these discussion threads?
>
> Harold