Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALL -- selecting the gTLDs in the initial

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 11-Mar-2000 Milton Mueller wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kent Crispin" <kent@songbird.com>
> 
>> It would be perfectly
>> reasonable for some group headed by, for example, Jamie Love, to propose
>> a TLD, and contract with an already established registry (say Nominet,
>> or maybe even NSI) to operate the registry for them.  This proposal
>> precludes such a possibility.
> 
> No, it doesn't. If Jamie Love contracted with Nominet, e.g., then that would
> be part of a registry proposal. The fact that Love might be using an
> existing registry is certainly something that should be taken into account
> in making decisions. Therefore, the proposal MUST come from a registry
> capable of operating, and not simply be a floating idea for a TLD string.
> 
>> Of course, one could get out of this difficulty by simply saying that
>> anyone who proposes a TLD is a registry, by definition -- that would be
>> easy to live with.
> 
> One must do more than "propose" a TLD string. One must be willing to operate
> the registry or take responsibility for contracting with an operator, define
> registration criteria, etc. But anyone who does that -- as J. Love's CPT is
> proposing to do -- is in fact proposing to operate a registry.
> 
> If you think the absence of a definition is a problem, then propose one.

Agreed. In this case J. Love's CPT would be the registry, and they would be
contracting with a third party to meet the technical specifications and carry
out the policies of the registry.    This makes the distinction between the
actual operator of the technical operations and the administrator.   The
administrator/registry's proposal should contain the details of how they plan
to fulfill the technical operations (i.e. the standards they will require in
bids from operators, or the actual party who has already agreed or been
contracted to manage the operations). 

I see nothing in the current consensus to preclude this type of a setup, though
I will admit many of us when we talk about a "registry" envision the registry
operating the technical end internally as one organization.  But nothing in the
report mandates that or precludes the situation discussed above.

- --
William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
http://userfriendly.com/
Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/

iD8DBQE4ywlr8zLmV94Pz+IRAqJYAKC+3rhkjgB1f52l0BlpnHJ/V0MO4ACeJQl0
eWLfm67uXAWUZJMBiAufCXw=
=0CG0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----