Re: Thread 1: Sharing

[chris@hal.iodesign.com (Christopher Ambler)]

Good points, Karl -

>> as soon as everyone agrees to share? An agreement between the new
>> registrars is simple to execute. Then, as soon as NSI joins in, we all
>> share. This, too, may be immediate - or it may be when the NSF agreement
>> runs out. 
>
>Whether they will CHOOSE to do so is not known.  What IS known is that we
>have not seen ANY public commitment from them that they WON'T do this.
>It may also be never.

It may. But if NSI pulls out all the stops to keep their monopoly,
can anyone honestly say that the new registrars still must share?
Let's set it up so that the new registrars can go head-to-head with
NSI, while inviting them to share so we all have level ground. It's
fair both ways.

>1)	FCFS recognition for EXISTING registries (again, ALL of them,
>	IANA-recognized or not) in the order which they ACTUALLY went 
>	constructively online.

While I am naturally in favour of this, there has been some dissention.
Can anyone give a reason why this is unfair? Please do say that what
the current registries are doing is 'rogue' or 'unrecognizable,' since
that's an opinion that is contested. Why, in objective terms, would
it be unfair to allow those registries who have demonstrated a working
system to be given recognition in the selection of registrars?

>2)	Punitive application fees.  These are an outrage.

The $20,000 fee seems to be used as a barrier to entry to insure that
the applicant has financial means. What would you suggest in its
place, Karl?

>3)	Punitive restrictions on free commerce and trade (ie: extreme
>	limits on the number of gTLDs and registries).

This is being covered in another thread, would you comment there?

>There's lots more -- but this is a good start.

Thank you. I appreciate your participation very much.

--
Christopher Ambler
President, Image Online Design, Inc.