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

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 03:08:25PM -0500, Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
> 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.


Suggesting this when the question of whether ICANN should even be in
the business of dictating the new TLDs is still on the table is
premature.

Furthermore, I seem to recall that registrars were pre-selling SLDs in
these TLDs at some point last year.  I'd be interested to hear what
happened to those registrations, and the monies that paid for them.

Finally, since these 7 have proven to be contentious and were decided
upon several years ago when the Internet was a different place, I
suggest that if and when the time is right to discuss which TLDs
should be chosen, a new set should be agreed upon, and these old,
contentious seven abandoned.

-- 
Mark C. Langston
mark@bitshift.org
Systems & Network Admin
San Jose, CA