RE: [wg-c] nsi proposes to create new gTLds

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

>The registry is to be created and operated on a cooperative basis by
>"all willing ICANN accredited registrars", not by NSI.  NSI unselfishly,
>and with only the most community minded of motives, offers to contract
>out support services to this registry, but that would clearly be the
>decision of the registry. 

Giving NSI a piece of the action, and remaining the only registry
services operator. Very unselfish of them, indeed.

I've got a better idea: decide how many new registries will be
created (I thought we had consensus on 6-10, but the names
council has decided that we didn't. Imagine that), and tender
offers for companies to run them. NSI isn't the only company out
there with functional software, or the means to develop it.

If speed is an issue (and I can't imagine how it would be, as
we've waited 4 years already), then IOD has a registry system
operational now.

Tell you what, take NSI's proposal, and replace "NSI" with "IOD"
and it's just as viable.

The only thing we got today was a front-row seat to watch a
captured group of individuals throw away a year's worth of work.
We should all be insulted and angry. And we should all be
offended at NSI's willingness to step in and try to carve out
yet another piece of the pie for themselves. As I've said 
before, what's discussed in the working group is irrelevant.
The names council does what they want to do. And ICANN will
now do what *they* want to do (within the constraints of the
negotiations they've had behind closed doors with those who
are pulling the strings of the names council).

Anyone who is surprised by what happened today hasn't been
paying attention.

--
Christopher Ambler
chris@the.web