Re: Fw: Re: Shared domains

[Vince Wolodkin <wolodkin@digitalink.com>]

Christopher Ambler wrote:
> 
> >Let's say you are granted exclusivity of .web.  How are we(the
> >community) going to guarantee up front that your registry will be
> >responsive to the public needs?  What recourse will we have if you are
> >not?  You have said time and time again that you should be allowed to
> >run your registry as you see fit.  Isn't this what NSI is doing?
> 
> These arguments sound as if we would be the ONLY other registry running
> beside NSI. This isn't the case. If the public didn't like the way we
> run .WEB, they could go to NSI for .COM. If they don't like that, they
> can go to the .XXX or .T64 or .BIZ or .CORP or .COOL or .WIRED or .SEX
> or .GMBH or .INC or...
> 
This, of course, is unacceptable as we have discussed before.  Once you
market a domain, you will have spent quite a bit of money and will
expect to have continued use of it.  Inadequate policies of monopolistic
registries should not cause me monetary loss.  Shared registries would
give me freedom to move from a bad registry to a good one.

> If there are concerns about minimal levels of service, then mandate them
> in an open procedure. I'm willing to participate and comply.
> 

You would be willing to have all your policies proscribed by an open
committee???  Couldn't this affect your financing?(Rhetorical, for your
consideration, don't expect a response)

Vince