No Subject

[T Vienneau <timv2000@yahoo.com>]

Rick,

I didn't require the chartered gTLD to be monopoly, I just said it should
be possible within the scope of the application criteria.

That said, I believe a monopoly or oligopoly have a more realistic chance
of providing meaningful enforcement of a restrictive charter, for example
.mil

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick H Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 7:13 AM
To: T Vienneau
Cc: wg-c@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [wg-c] application documents requirements



tim,

why is a chartered gTLD required to be a monopoly? why could it not be
"shaired?"

-rick

On Fri, 17 Mar 2000, T Vienneau wrote:

> How about a minor change to accomodate non-shared registries, which are
> probably necessary in the case of restrictive charter gTLDs.
>  
>   o operational issues - what reports and are generated for registrars
*if
> the registry is shared*, how are the gTLD root servers operated and
> updated?
> 
> Tim Vienneau


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com