forwarded
-- Robert Shaw <robert.shaw@itu.int> Advisor, Global Information Infrastructure International Telecommunication Union <http://www.itu.int> Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland --------------74D7D134656C223E13A645EE Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inlineReceived: from sigma.itu.ch (sigma.itu.ch [156.106.128.30]) by ties.itu.ch (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA12167 for <SHAW@SEIT.ITU.CH>; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 19:47:29 +0100 (MET) Received: from mail.proper.com (mail.proper.com) by ITU.CH (PMDF V5.0-6 #16074) id <01ISGG01A94IB3K58Y@ITU.CH> for robert.shaw@ITU.CH; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 19:47:14 +0200 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) id KAA24613; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:42:27 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:42:27 -0800 (PST) From: owner-pab@ties.itu.ch Subject: BOUNCE pab@gtld-mou.org: Non-member submission from [John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>] To: owner-pab@gtld-mou.org Message-id: <199801161842.KAA24613@mail.proper.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
>From owner-pab Fri Jan 16 10:42:11 1998 Received: from manta.outremer.com (manta.outremer.com [206.48.63.51]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA24603; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:42:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jbroom@localhost) by manta.outremer.com (8.8.7/8.6.9) id PAA30537; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 15:01:06 -0400 From: John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com> Message-Id: <199801161901.PAA30537@manta.outremer.com> Subject: Re: The opening up of .com (WAS: PAB [Fwd: Ira speaks....]) To: jdd@matthew.uk1.vbc.net (Jim Dixon) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 15:01:06 -0400 (AST) Cc: bsemich@users.org, pab@gtld-mou.org, core-submit@core.gtld-mou.org, gtld-discuss@gtld-mou.org In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.980116174043.9676B-100000@matthew.uk1.vbc.net> from "Jim Dixon" at Jan 16, 98 05:51:55 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > You don't need a weatherman to tell which direction the wind is blowing. > > But in case you can't see or feel the wind, here's what I read "between > > the lines" below: > > > > 1. Magaziner will recommend the seven new TLDs be put on hold > > indefinitely. > > This would be a very positive development. The practice of collecting > payments for preregistering names in the new TLDs has created a > situation with some very unpleasant possibilities; this would solve > that problem in a stroke.
Positive? (Ie not entering the 7 into the IANA root) Once the CORE shared registry goes online and they have their servers running, the fact that the registrars are charging for registering names into that database would make the *operation* EQUAL (as far as collecting cash from customers to then register domains under TLDs. Do *NOT* interpret my words to mean this equal in any other sense.) to all the other wannabe registries who charge for name registrations. Presumably you therefore think that it would also be very positive to put your pet scheme (.eu, .eur, .euro, can't remember which) on hold indefinitely too then? (though I think in your case it already is). So you think it is positive to put ALL new TLDs on hold indefinitely... (for some people indefinitely means forever, for others it just means no fixed date).
> > 2. The .com, .net and .org TLDs will be opened up for competitive > > Registrars to manage, including NSI/WorldNIC as well as the CORE members > > and database manager. > > This would also be wonderful for all concerned - except perhaps > NSI - especially if the requirements for becoming a CORE registrar > were relaxed.
CORE is not a registrar, but manages registries. If .com, .net, and .org are opened up for competition, then you will need *some* organisation to handle the actual registry. CORE members would probably not join the scheme as "CORE members" but as individual registrars (much like some do today when signing on as premium or premiere partners with NSI). If you open a TLD for competition, then the only way you can do it (as far as I can see) is through some sort of shared registry scheme. Some say it would have to an organisation run along similar lines to that which handles the #800 telephone numbers in the US (and then you get the warped minds that say you are equalling domain names to telephone numbers because you copmpare a company structure), or nominet or CORE (and despite what people may shout and scream, there's not that much difference between these three organisations).
> > 3. NSI will be delegated as the Registry for .us or a newly created TLD. > And while NSI might not be so pleased with this, if they had a short- > term monopoly they would doubtless turn their energies and marketing > skills towards getting Americans to register in .US, which in many ways > would be very good for both the USA and the rest of the world.
If they are also delegated the task of deciding the naming policy under ".us", then I think this would be a VERY good idea. Anything which would lessen the burden to an extent on gTLDs, and somehow beef up ".us" can't be too bad.
Yours, John Broomfield.
--------------74D7D134656C223E13A645EE--