Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs

[Eric Brunner <brunner@world.std.com>]

Rick,

Rather than risk starting another (avoidable) WG-C event, why not just
send your question to Ken Stubbs, Erica Roberts and Paul Kane and let
the Article VI-b(3) Constituency speak for themselves?

Do they want to attempt multi-policy operations for modest volumes of
registrants to distinct registries? To act as registrars to .MUSEUM and
.NAA and similar bits of the DNS registry market?

Do they want to attempt single-policy operations for high volumes of
registrants to registries who's "distinction" is simply sufficient to
survive the Sheppard/Klieman litmus (seven or more variations on the
themes of "apple-pie" and "generic-hood")?

If the question were couched in rational economic terms (hand waving is
allowed) rather than in absolute terms, it and the answer(s) could be
interesting. As posed, the obvious answer is "no", until you think why
registrars would give a fig for registrant populations smaller than the
threshold of the day, 10^4 or 10^5 or 10^6 or 10^7 registrants.

Cheers,
Eric

P.S. I haven't gotten a scrap of mail from a registry operator (but one)
or a registrar that suggests that registrant populations smaller than an
initial guess of 10^5 registrants is of the slightest interest to them.