Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs

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

William Walsh wrote:
> On 18-Apr-2000 Kent Crispin wrote:
> > I submit that this is an infinitely better result than bankrupting IODs 
> > investors in a bunch of problematic lawsuits.
> 
> While I agree with the above statement, the rest of your email presumes a
> shared registry model for all new registries, and that is not what we have
> agreed on here in this workgroup.

I take it you mean the generic TLDs (I *can* see limited/chartered/restricted/
whatever-you-call-them TLDs being run by a single registrar-registry system,
but -as I keep saying- it's a completely different set of issues).
We haven't agreed on the contrary either (that generic TLDs could be run in
another fashion). I am sure we would NOT receive consensus on the principle
that generic TLDs could be run by a single entity registry-registrar. We've
had that model, and we've seen how it didn't work (NSI holding on to
com/net/org), and we've fought very hard to oblige it to open up. gTLDs run
in that way are just not going to happen IMHO. The dreaded expression of
"lock-in" rears its head way to high to allow that.

Your statement that we have not yet agreed on all new [generic] registries
being run on a shared registry model is only half correct. What we haven't
yet agreed on is how they are to be run (which is why there is such lack of
progress). Personally I feel that one of the major blocking points up to now
*had* always been IOD asserting exclusive ownership over ".web". It seems that
things are now changing, and we *may* have a way forward.

Yours, John Broomfield.