Re: Int'l diversity in iTLD Registries

["Stephane F. Kallos" <skallos@interfusion.net>]

Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> Stephane F. Kallos allegedly said:
> >
> > The postel draft had accounted for a maximum of 50% of all registries
> > being from one country.  This seems to be missing from the recently
> > submitted proposals to the IAHC.
> >
> > It is important because:
> >
> > 1)   The internet is global
> >
> > 2)   Name registration should not be completly managed by registries in
> > only (or primarily) one country
> >
> > 3)   To further promote diversity among the registries (ie language)
> >
> > Why has such an important issue been left out?  Has the IAHC considered
> > this issue?
> >
> > Would a smaller figure not be more appropriate? ie 35%
> >
> > The briefer your response is, the more likely I am to read it.
> 
> Stephane,
> 
> With shared registries the issue becomes much less important.  If
> .com were shared, and someone in France wanted to start a registry
> for it, they could do so, for example.  Such a registry would always
> have a competitive advantage in France over any registry in the US.

The general consensus that I've seen appears to be that for the short-term future 
shared registries are not quite 100% viable. If using "meta-registries", the 
situation is the same only pushed to a different level.  I think what many people 
agree with is keeping options somewhat open to be able to use shared registries 
when a very viable model comes along (including technical specifications).

In other words:
Short-term: More iTLDs with a single registry per iTLD
 Long-term: Keep options open for a shared registry system allowing competition in
            each TLD.  (here nothing is certain)

Stephane

-- 
Stephane F. Kallos       | Interfusion Internet Strategies
skallos@interfusion.net  | http://www.interfusion.net
                         | 800 Rene-Levesque West #1100
                         | Montreal, Quebec, H3B 1X9 Canada
                         | Phone: 514.876.4410 Fax: 514.876.4156