| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
Sensible (and Tactical) Thoughts on New TLDs from the Business Constituency
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 16 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
I very much endorse the thinking in this section. In an ideal world no registry in my opinion would "own" a TLD and the TLD Manager would regularly tender out for the operation of a registry for that name. That way you would get competition and innovation as registries compete to "host" TLDs.
There would be issues around who would make the decision to tender for the open gTLDs which may not have a natural organisation to act as manager. You could argue ICANN itself - because that is the role it originally had for com, net and org before it gifted two of them back to Verisign for pretty much life.
To some degree .org has gone down these lines. ISOC is the TLD Manager and it has effectively select Affilias to run the registry (even though it is through PIR). I presume ISOC/PIR has the power to choose to use another backend provider after a certain period of time.
DPF
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm afraid I don't see how this could be done fairly. You have encumbants who will receive an advantage that no new applicant would receive. You have applicants already in line, who have paid a considerable sum, who would have to disqualify themselves as not meeting this new criteria. I fail to see how this could be implemented in a fair and legal manner.
++Peter
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
|
actually, this raises a point I am a bit consfused about: Which party actually signed the contract with DoC, ISOC or PIR...or both? Is it fair to describe the role of ISOC as that of a sponsor? If it is PIR that has the contract with DoC, can they pick a new "sponsor" just like they can, in theory, choose a new back-end registry operator? Or is the "sponsor entity" required to be a signed party to the contract with DoC? Was ISOC required to sign with DoC for .ORG or just PIR? I know that PIR was created for the purposes of the .ORG redelegation but is their relationship with ISOC some sort of lifetime marriage that can never ever be broken? Or is it simply that it is ISOC that is the principle party to the contract with DoC, and not PIR?
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
