RE: [wg-c] voting on TLDs

["Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>]

>ATT has sunk the cost into the infrastructure; adding the entries in 
>the table for BB&S's TLD won't be much more work than what is currently 
>involved in registering an SLD, and any fees they can charge simply 
>defray their already sunk costs.  BB&S can go to ICANN and say, "Look, 
>I've got a contract with a huge registry with multiple OC48s that will 
>provide the technical infrastructure for my TLD."  Since there would be 
>thousands of large companies in this situation, competition will be 
>brisk, prices will get down to the true incremental cost of adding a 
>TLD to a registry (close to zero).

For sake of argument, let's assume that you're correct, and this is
the scenario that would play out.

What, then, do YOU suggest be the procedure to limit this?

Speaking from my own perspective, I'd love a good solution - I'm
coming from the standpoint of already having the infrastructure
in place for a registry, so that's not a worry for me. Indeed, limit
the field and you enhance the value to me of what I already have.
I suspect the few pioneering registries (with one of which you have
your own affiliations) want nothing more than a limiting function.

Just being honest, Kent. So limit away.

I'm serious, though - what's your proposal?

-- 
Christopher Ambler
chris@the.web