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

[Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

Eric,

why should new gTLDs be creted for potential registrant populations less
than 10^5.

Infact this would be an excellent test for the utility of a generic TLD,
why create something that does not have the potential for more than a
certain limit, whatever limit is set. 

Does the creation of something like .MUSEUM realy add to the utility of
DNS or are we looking at DNS's ability to be a relay bad directory
service again?

If our goal is to open the way for popular gTLDs that create more
"generic" name space then I believe you are making an excelent case not to
have sparcely populated, no matter the modle, gTLDs as the mere fact
that the gTLD lends more benifit to the registry than to the general
internet community. What we are atempting to do is add a greater  and
more diverse name space not lend greater credibility to any .SOMETHING

regards,

-rick



On Sun, 19 Mar 2000, Eric Brunner wrote:

> 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.
>