Re: 60 day waiting peroid.

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 7:34 AM -0500 12/23/96, David Collier-Brown wrote:

> At 6:48 PM -0800 12/20/96, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > > 2.  You register a name and wait 2 months.   You are challenged
>and have to
> > > give up the name.  YOu have little invested, since you haven't started
> > > using it.
> > >
> > >       I would choose 2.  What makes it so onerous?
>
> Simon Higgs wrote:
> > Internet Dog Years.
>
>
>   Good point!  But that re-raises the question of how much this is
> tied to the rapid rise in registrations on the 'net.
>
>   Let me ask the question directly: Is a 60-day period
> 	i) suitable in times of high registration rates?
> 	ii) suitable after the rates flatten out?
>
>   I speculate that the answer to (i) is true, that (ii) is
> false and that a necessary and sufficient period will fall
> in steps toward roughly 30 days based on user experience and
> the availability of new-domain search servies.
>
>   If folks believe this speciulation true, then I'd venture to suggest
> that the period be a variable, and that it be set to 60 days in the
> final IAHC RFC, with the option to change it later, say 90 days after
> approval of another RFC...
>

I think this 60 day thing is a red herring. It ignores a critical point
about the administration of the namespace. In my draft, the Specialized
TLD Class does not require a 60 day waiting period as it's covered by
other means. Neither does the Shared TLD Class.

Why?

It's really very simple. The Specialized TLD Class focuses on a
specific market segment (or industry). The name is very meaningful.
It's closely controlled like .INT is currently. The TLD charter
(hello... Kent just reminded me this is missing from the IAHC draft)
specifies the criteria for registration - maybe proof of a trademark or
other documentation needs to be provided.

In the Shared TLD Class, the TLD is less meaningful (generic?), or is
delegated to multiple registrars by localized market forces (ISO-3166).
It's FCFS until otherwise decided by a local court.

Sadly, the IAHC misses the finer points of the shared/non-shared TLD
(NOT registrar) relationships and have just come up with a technical
solution to the business and social issues within the namespace - and
consequently lack the insight to address these areas properly.


Simon

--
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.