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

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 20-Mar-2000 Dave Crocker wrote:
> William, you used a term and I asked you to explain it.  Instead you cam 
> back with a question, but no explanation.  So I rpeat my question:  what do 
> you mean "competition at the registry level"?

You know perfectly well what I mean, Dave.  I'm not getting caught up in your
word games.
 
> None of those 240 are "shared registries".  They are individual 
> regisitries, each under control of a single authority.  Some have multiple 
> registrars.  Is that what you meant?

I think that was perfectly clear.  There is no need to mandate that all
registries be "shared" and there are certainly no technical constraints that
they must be this way.  BTW, can you please point the exact IAB technical
constraints you mean?  They don't seem to exist.

- --
William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
http://userfriendly.com/
Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/

iD8DBQE41XgG8zLmV94Pz+IRAn32AKDnu33kfhaIXDG44BXxUYgHqfp5xgCguYB1
wIMb7y/RycyvVDE9nkR9h3s=
=UgQ7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----