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

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.net>]

At 07:38 PM 4/10/00 -0400, John Charles Broomfield wrote:

Unfortunately, this whole thread goes against the introduction of 
specialized TLDs which may be required to reserve specific names for 
specific uses. I can think of several examples which would pre-load DNS. 
Just look at one of CORE's pre-existing examples:

nic.info

There are plenty of others.

> > Just to bring closure to this, I'm 100% with Kent's recommendation for
> > a round-robinning mechanism, or some other fairness mechanism, being
> > instantiated to throttle the flood of potentially conflicting registrations
> > from various registrars when the new TLDs go live.
> >
> > Now, someone please buy me a drink.  I just agreed with Kent, and I
> > need one.
> >
> > --
> > Mark C. Langston
> > mark@bitshift.org
> > Systems & Network Admin
> > San Jose, CA
>
>I am also in complete agreement that no previous registrations in any new
>TLD that gets added to the legacy roots should be grandfathered in.
>The only mechanism that seems fair would be a round-robin mechanism to flush
>the queues at point 0 of when the TLD goes live. Whichever way it's done,
>once the name of a new TLD is announced, there WILL be pressure on the
>registrars (or the companies below the legal registrar) to build up waiting
>lists, and most certainly somewhere someone WILL accept "queue-building" or
>"preregistrations" or whatever you want to call it.
>
>There's nothing stopping me from writing a script that interfaces to a
>registrars' web-based registration page or generates email forms and
>bombarding the said registrar which in turn will bombard the registry. Which
>means that if no registrar does it upfront, then the activity will exist and
>be underground.
>
>Declaring illegal what is unenforceable is not worth the hassle.
>
>Do I get a drink too?
>
>Yours, John.