The answer, of course, is that .Arts was chosen because it looks to be
the _least_ popular appeal. Why start with a "middle"? If we want to
get some deployment experience, with the least possible financial
liability for the registrars, the least is the one to use.
And work our way up to the most.
And absolutely _not_ limit ourselves to one TLD, just _start_ with one.
I certainly don't implement every protocol option in the first pass --
implement one option, test, add another option, test, etc, etc.
This is just engineering common sense.
> From: Dan Busarow <dan@dpcsys.com>
> To: Mark Henderson-Thynne <mark@netnames.co.uk>
> On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Mark Henderson-Thynne wrote:
> > >makes most sense to the registrars. I suspect they'll agree with
> > >.arts but it would be nice to ask :)
> >
> > I thinks .arts would make a poor entry choice as it (with rules regarding
> > assignment) has limited appeal. There is also the problem of the challenge
> > against the right to use .arts by (I think) Skyscape.
>
> Guess asking CORE was appropriate :) I know your's isn't an official
> voice Mark but it counts to me.
>
> My reasoning wrt .arts was that I *thought* it was probably somewhere
> in the middle popularity wise. Using the least, or even second least
> popular gTLD is probably not a good idea. Using the most popular
> seems dangerous as well. The registrars would have much greater
> financial exposure if the USG were to shut CORE down.
>
> The idea is to get something operational. Not to limit CORE to
> one TLD as the GP would have it. Start with something in the middle
> and add the rest as circumstances permit.
>
> I think your other comments support pulling *any* policing policy
> out of the charter.
>
WSimpson@UMich.edu
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32