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

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

I would accept, for the sake of discussion, that your point has merit
and should be examined. I hope that you would, in turn, see my point
as applying directly to registrars who were part of the initial testbed,
then, as they enjoyed the early benefits thereof.

-- 
Christopher Ambler
chris@the.web


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Ross
Wm. Rader
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2000 4:41 PM
Cc: wg-c@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs


> 
> That's not what he's saying. What he's saying is that giving an invitee
> seconds before someone waiting at the door has even taken their first
> plate is unfair, at best. There's plenty of room, as you say. So let's
> let everyone get their firsts before we start the call for seconds.

Which still leaves the question concerning the connection between existing
registries v. existing registrars dangling. 

To be quite honest, I still don't understand what precluding existing
registrars accomplishes.

We don't have any grand design to run a registry, but precluding us
because we chose to a) lower our registration costs for our retail
business and b) drop value back to our existing clients by setting up a
wholesale biz simply doesn't resonate.

-RWR



--------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Wm. Rader                     http://www.domaindirect.com
Director, Assigned Names Division       http://www.opensrs.org    
TUCOWS.com Inc.                     http://www.domainwatch.com
ross@tucows.com                    http://www.domainsurfer.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
t. (416) 531-2697 x 335                      f. (416) 531-5584
----------------"Because-People-Need-Names"-------------------