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

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

On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 01:48:01PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> At 01:36 PM 4/10/00 -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote:
> >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.
> 
> ahh.  well, me too.
> 
> And CORE is not such an entity, though there ARE some others around.
> 
> >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.
> 
> yes.  definitely concur.
> 


Ok.  Then we're left with the registrars who have enormous pre-existing
queues of pre-sold domain names within TLDs that as yet have no registry.

What shall we do with them?  I see only two solutions:

1)  Those queues be flushed, or

2)  All registrars immediately start pre-selling domain names in 
the TLDs they think will end up in the testbed period, so that no
registrar ends up getting screwed in this process.

The conflicts among identical names from different registrars, and the
resulting load suddenly put on the new registries, and the SRS, for a
given TLD should be spectacular to watch.

(there is, of course, a third option: All the other accredited
registrars, who've Done The Right Thing and not pre-sold names in
these unregistried TLDs just ignore those other registrars who have
done so and are about to eat their lunch on these new TLD rollouts.  I
suspect that won't happen, tho).

So, shall we move to this arena, now that the issue of pre-sold
registries has been cleared up?

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