Re: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>]

At 10:09 PM 3/21/00 -0500, James Love wrote:
>and .org), it may not be extremely important which ones go first, but it
>will probably be important enough to be controversial.

It should not be that important, no.  However, those who get in first 
presumably have a competitive advantage, since there is such agitation 
about having for-profit registries.  That goes away, of course, of the 
registries are non-profit.

A realted question is whether the names are selected separately from 
selecting the registries that administer them -- making the name choices 
far less controversial -- or whether the activity is tied to particular 
registry authorizations.


>I propose the decision making be decentralized.  I would recommend 3 be
>selected by the business/registrar constituencies, 3 by the
>non-commercial domain holders, and 3 selected by the ICANN at large
>members, in an online vote.  That's 9, and the 10th could be selected in

The basic idea of having a broad effort is quite reasonable.  The problem 
with your particular choices are that, as noted, there won't be an 
operational at-large mechanism for something.  The other problem is that 
there has not been a particularly active, and certainly not coherent, and 
most especially not representative, non-commercial domain holder's 
constituency.

Having already participated in an effort to produce a list of 7 names, I'm 
disinclined to do it again, myself.


>some other way.  Perhaps a lottery by those with "pioneer" proposals, or

You would consider giving the rogue registry participants -- the folks who 
tried to replace the IANA DNS root system -- special position???

d/

=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker  <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA