Re: Relationship of CORE and ISOC, timetable for current gTLDinclusion

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@imc.org>]

At 2:28 PM -0600 12/24/96, Danny Padwa wrote:
>	I'm a little worried that CORE is not explicitly made
>responsible to ISOC by the draft.   Is it responsible to its board
>members - the already operational registries?

	I have mixed feelings about the need for a body above CORE.  The
mixed membership of CORE's board of trustees is intended to provide
community oversight.  If you feel it inadequate, please offer text which
specifies an additional oversight group, both its makeup and its operation.

>	Also - was there a reason that no timetable was provided for
>the incorporation of current gTLDs (eg those currently run by NSI)
>into the new scheme?   I understand (and strongly support) the desire

	there IS a timetable, but no, it's not based on the calendar, it's
based on a gating event, namely NSI's decision to join CORE.

>redelegated to CORE?   Otherwise there does not seem to be any
>incentive for current registrars to join.

	The primary incentive is the ability to be a registrar for the
additional gTLDs.

d/


(read the last line, please)
----------------------------
Dave Crocker, Director                                       +1 408 246 8253
Internet Mail Consortium                                 (f) +1 408 249 6205
127 Segré Place                                             dcrocker@imc.org
Santa Cruz, CA  95060 USA                                 http://www.imc.org

Also:  IAHC member, expressing strictly (or loosely) personal opinions