Re: Int'l diversity in iTLD Registries

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

Stephane F. Kallos allegedly said:
> 
> Kent Crispin wrote:
[...]
> > 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
> 

That would suggest then that all licenses for TLDs, whether renewals
or new, henceforth contain language something similar to the
following:

    "Licensee understands and agrees that this license is not for any
    kind of exclusive control of the TLD, and in the future, if and
    when acceptable RFC standards are approved by the IETF that permit
    sharing of registration duties for the TLD, other registries may
    be licensed for this TLD.  Licensee further agrees in such event
    to completely cooperate with those new licensees in the
    establishment and operation of the sharing protocol."

How does this sound to you?

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov		the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E  87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F