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

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.net>]

At 11:37 AM 4/10/00 -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 11:10:29AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > At 10:52 AM 4/10/00 -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote:
> > >  I propose that we allow no pre-sold TLDs to become part of the
> > >testbed, and I further propose that we re-evaluate this position once
> > >the testbed period has ended.
> >
> > Are you then, also, going to propose regulating the ways that registrars
> > maintain their financial records?  The temperature of their offices?
> >
> > One of the more difficult aspects to this activity is being very careful
> > and consistent about what is NECESSARY for ICANN and registries to deal
> > with, and what is not.
> >
> > Within the limits of concern about such things as mis-representations of
> > the registry, the business dealings between a registrar and its customers
> > are not reasonably the concern of the registry or ICANN.
>
>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
>will not introduce additional namespace, it will simply introduce
>already occupied namespace.

Which will happen anyway after a day or so. Or do you want the name space 
to remain permanently empty? Please remember the existing guidelines for 
domain name applications.

> > >The IAHC 7, on the other hand, were of dubious value, were not in the
> > >roots, and were only reachable by those willing to configure their
> > >systems to handle multiple independent roots.  They should not have
> > >been pre-sold as though they were going to be added to the roots
> > >any day now.  However, if I recall the ad copy, that's how CORE was
> > >pushing them.
> >
> > Where and when did "CORE" push them, as opposed to some registrars that
> > belonged to CORE?
> >
> > Please be careful to distinguish between activities of the association and
> > independent actions by association members.
>
>Sorry.  Yes, this was pushed by the CORE registrars as individual entities
>and not by CORE itself.  Sorry for any confusion.

Don't be. You were right the first time. The POC made a collective policy 
decision to accept pre-sold domain names. This was not an action limited to 
individual registrars, but an action sanctioned by the POC:

http://www.gtld-mou.org/docs/faq.html#2.4
"There have been some suggestions that POC ban registrars from taking 
"pre-registrations". After carefully considering this, POC decided not to 
ban pre-registrations as it could not prevent other third parties (non-CORE 
members) from queuing registrations and submitting them through a CORE 
registrar. And indeed, there are
many companies doing exactly this."