Re: [wg-c] The Issues At Hand

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

> I see, thank you.
> In that case, we also believe that companies such as IOD
> and CORE, who set up infrastructure under the then-current
> policies and procedures are, if nothing else, victims of
> history, and they (nor their customers) should not be
> penalized as a result.

To penalize (as far as I understand it) means to hand out a penalty, or to
less the party worse off than it was before. Today IOD sells ".web"
registrations in ITS ".web" which is not visible in the legacy roots. To
continue the status quo (ie, continue to keep IOD's ".web" out of the legacy
roots) is not penalizing IOD. Adding a ".web" which does not belong to IOD
to the legacy roots is not penalizing IOD, as they currently do not have a
TLD of their own in the legacy roots.
Trying to characterize IOD as a victim is convenient to IOD, but far from
the truth.
IOD's business may be affected by the fact that current "customers" (though
maybe "dupes" as in having being duped would be closer to the truth) would
suddenly cease to be fooled into believing that IOD has the right to force
".web" into any set of nameservers that it deems fit, but one could hardly
consider that penalizing IOD. In fact, you could call it competition! Do you
want a registration in IOD's ".web" visible at IOD servers, or do you want a
registration in the more open ".web" visible on the legacy servers (and in
most places throughout the world -better than American Express!-)?

> The issue of specialized zones that come pre-populated, and
> the possibility of private zones that are currently populated
> (for example, .ATT or .MCI or .IBM) should be considered as
> well.

If IOD owns ".web", they can put whatever they want in it. If IBM owns
".ibm", then so can they. Presumably "ownership" or responsibility for a
".web" will fall onto ICANN, so it will be their rules as to what and how
goes in there.

Yours, John Broomfield.