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

["Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>]

>As everyone except you and Ambler have continuously pointed out, CORE
>did not accept money for any so-called "pre-registrations".  CORE was
>supposed to operate a *registry*, which was never put into operation.
>The *registrars* who signed up with CORE were free to do anything that
>they thought they could get away with, including accepting money from
>fools for speculative purposes, much as IOD currently does.  However,
>IOD wants to work both sides of its street, operating as both registry
>and registrar, thus trying to become yet another monopoly a-la NSI.

First of all IOD does not want to operate as both registry and
registrar, and I resent you claiming such. IOD wants to operate
as registry only. The registrar functions on IOD's site are
there until the procedure for adding new TLDs to the root is
enacted, much like NSI was both until their new operating procedure
was enacted.

Secondly, you would be VERY surprised what CORE has done. Unfortunately,
due to active litigation, I can't talk about it. But what I can say
is that the registrars pay a monthly fee to CORE. As such, the
separation of registry and registrar that CORE like to hold out
falls on its face when you realize that the registrars are
financially bound to CORE. Additionally, CORE dictates policy
to the registrars, and this is key:

While CORE likes to claim that the registrars are free to do
as they wish, this is just not true. Case in point, the domain
transfer issue that became apparent just last month, wherein
a CORE registrar made it public that they were unable to
affect a transfer due to CORE rules and policies.

Perhaps before you berate someone, you do a little research
and know what you're talking about?

--
Christopher Ambler
chris@the.web