Re: Shared vs. Exclusive

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

David R. Conrad allegedly said:
> 
> Hank,
> 
> >a) The Shared Top Level Domain Working at Higgs is about a year away from
> >completing its draft RFC, having it accepted as an RFC and having
> >all the software up and running to have an operational shared TLD.  
> 
> The existance of an RFC describing the operation of a shared TLD is a
> prerequisite or is a "would be nice to have"?
> 
> >In
> >order to eliminate "exclusive' TLDs, Higgs and crew have to complete
> >their work.  In the interim, we need exclusive TLDs.
> 
> If prerequisite, what would you think of an copyright/patent like
> exclusive period limitation of say 1 year to 18 months?

I have noted this in a couple of previous posts, but perhaps I will 
mention it again -- it is *not true* that all the mechanisms for 
operating shared TLD registries have to be in place before licenses 
for shared TLDs can be awarded.  Single licenses for shared TLDs can be 
awarded immediately after the details of the licensing agreement are 
worked out.  This gives those registries who are granted such a 
license a defacto grace period of exclusive use until suitable 
protocols can wend their way through the IETF RFC process, but 
establishes the TLDs as shared from the very start.

IMO, licenses for shared TLDs will be complicated but straightforward
documents, with manageable pitfalls, whereas licenses for monopoly
TLDs will be much more complex and subtle, and with very, very much 
more expensive consequences if snags occur.

> >b) This list as well as others has shown to me at least, that certain
> >companies and individuals cannot live in peace and harmony in any sort
> >of shared system, let alone a shared TLD.  How long do you think a shared
> >TLD would last if it is shared by say 4-5 of the more common posters
> >to this forum?  No amount of rules and guidelines would save it.

All I can say, Hank, is that it would not be in their economic 
self-interest to destroy the TLD, and the licensing terms should be 
thought about very carefully vis a vis fostering mutual economic self 
interest for the registries.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov		the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B6 04 CC 30 9E DE CD FE  6A 04 90 BB 26 77 4A 5E