Re: [wg-c] Exclusions

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

	Sounds like a good idea to me.  (No, I'm not volunteering to help develop
the document.  But I encourage other people to do so.)

Jon


At 06:32 PM 3/16/00 -0800, Rick H Wesson wrote:
>
>Karl,
>
>it would appear that a document specifiing the requirements for
>applicatants to run a registry would would be within the scope of this
>working group.
>
>anyone interested in helping to develop a draft document?
>
>-rick
>
>On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
>> 
>> > I think that it's only fair that any company/entity that is a registrar
>> > should not be eligible for inclusion in the testbed phase for new
>> > registries. After the testbed, they should be allowed to apply, but
>> > to give a company testbed status in BOTH the registrar and
>> > registry phases is unfair to other companies.
>> 
>> Makes sense to me - Indeed I would go further and suggest that any person
>> or company that has a significant interest in an already existing TLD (to
>> my mind, *any* TLD, whether gTLD, ccTLD, or otherwise) ought to be
>> encouraged to fully focus on developing the asset it already has and not
>> be permitted to obtain a second bite from the TLD apple.
>> 
>> By "significant" interest, I would mean anyone/company that is a registry
>> or registrar for a TLD or any person who has a meaningful control power
>> over such a registry or registrar.
>> 
>> Thus, for example, I would not want NSI or any of the current registries
>> to have a bid for new TLDs.  Nor would, for instance, Verisign or SAIC,
>> given their interest in NSI.
>> 
>> 		--karl--
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>
>