Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven

["Mark C. Langston" <mark@bitshift.org>]

On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 01:16:24PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> At 11:37 AM 4/10/00 -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote:
> >I'm not saying this is an easy proposal to enforce.  But I stand by
> >the assertion that introducing pre-sold TLDs to the authoritative roots
> >under the pretense of expanding namespace is disingenuous because it
> 
> Mark, perhaps my language was not clear enough:  "under the pretense..." 
> presumes that there is a recognition of pre-sales by ICANN, CORE, or 
> whoever (other than the registrars.)
> 
> My point was that the action is invisible to ICANN and the registries.  It 
> should remain that way.
> 
> Registrars present registries with names to register.  How a registrar gets 
> a name (and, for that matter, when) is not the concern of the registry, as 
> long as the registrar has not misrepresented the registry.
> 
> Let me be further clear that the instant you start getting into the bed of 
> each registrar at that level, you have a massively regulated registrar 
> business.
> 
> There is a debate about the amount of control/constraint needed for 
> registries, but I was under the impression that we had massive consensus 
> that registrars were to do business in the manner they deemed appropriate.


Sorry, perhaps my language wasn't clear either: My problem is not with
the registrars.  I am opposed to ICANN entering into an agreement with
any registry (not -rar), at least during the testbed, that contains
any existing registrations in the TLD being courted.

I.e., any registry participating in the testbed and hosting .FOO
should be completely devoid of existing registrations in .FOO at the
inception of the testbed period.  No pre-existing .FOO registrations
will be grandfathered.

Otherwise, we're just adding another occupied block to the namespace.

If there's any doubt, perhaps the registries in question would like to
speak up with statistics about how many unique 1-letter, 2-letter,
3-letter, and 4-letter SLDs remain available for registration within
each?


Besides the point of fairness I'm trying to make, there's another very
sensible reason for not allowing any registry with pre-existing,
pre-sold registrations into the testbed: Those registries bring with
them an enormous amount of potential infringement in their SLDs, which
have not been held in check by any kind of process, be it the UDRP or
any other oversight.  Just flooding namespace with those pre-existing
registrations that have sat in the shadows all this time might very
well anger the IP interests.

But I'm sure an IP interest or two will speak up on this matter.

Finally, would someone please produce the documents in which IANA
blessed these various registries with the right to start registering
domains within these TLDs?  I've asked a few times here, I believe,
and haven't yet seen them.


-- 
Mark C. Langston
mark@bitshift.org
Systems & Network Admin
San Jose, CA