[wg-c] Specific Implementation Proposal: [Was:Re: nine principles fordomain names]

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

Mark Measday <measday@josmarian.ch> 02/22/00 02:26PM wrote:

>firm   .shop   .web   .arts   .rec   .info  .nom

>good testbed for the nine principles.

This is a good start.  Indeed these TLDs could serve as a good 
testbed for more than just the nine principles (with which I do not agree).  
Since there already exists a thoroughly-tested implementation of a 
shared registration system for precisely these TLDs (which will no 
doubt bring with it a thorough, real-world set of disputes over rights 
in and to the TLDs and the SLDs to be delegated thereunder) 
let us stop the nonsense (especially the "scientific dialog" about 
principles, linguistics, semantics and the nature of pinhead-dancing 
daemons) and ask CORE to propose a system for leveling the playing 
field between the "inside" registrars (the existing CORE members) 
and the "newby" registrars (those who will be admitted as a precondition 
of the Internet Community reaching a consensus that this proposal should 
be implemented).

For those readers who are unaware of this, there's *no* love lost 
between your author and either the membership or the leadership
of CORE.  But enough is enough:  it's time for the fat lady to warm
up her voice for the end of the first act.  And the truth is that all we're
speaking to is the end of the first act.  It's not hard to craft a system
under which CORE can be divested of its dominion over these TLDs
at the end of the testbed period if the consensus of the Internet Community
is that one or more of these TLDs should be delegated to a different
registry.  Neither is it challenging for this WG to address other, specific
proposals for the implementation of top level domains.

I have, on several occasions, floated a proposal which addresses the
need to prevent CORE from becoming a new NSI (read: monopolist) 
while also preventing the newbies from engaging in an unsupportable
free ride on the backs of the CORE membership.  If it's felt there is a
need for me to post the proposal once again, I will.  However, I also 
think that it's time for CORE to propose something constructive for a
change.

Please note:  the pending proposal to admit new members into CORE
upon their payment into CORE's coffers of an amount equal to what
the CORE membership have paid in since the Association was founded
is a true non-started.

But enough is enough:  either this WG is capable of making a proposal
for the implementation of new GTLDs, or it ain't.  The current discussion
is not moving us toward the promised land.  It's time we actually began to
dunk our toes in the River.

Kevin J. Connolly
The opinions expressed are those of the author, not of Robinson 
Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman LLP
This note is not legal advice.  If it were, it would come with an invoice.
As usual, please disregard the trailer which follows.

**********************************************************************
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
**********************************************************************