Re: Specific Questions

[John Leslie <john@jlc.net>]

Christopher Ambler wrote:
> 
> As an aside, to the gentleman who pointed out that what I'm doing
> is more "compromise" than "consensus,"

   Actually, Christopher, it is no more appropriate for you to re-quote
private e-mail than it was for Jeff to quote it. It's O.K. though, I
don't mind.

> I would like to take this opportunity to say thank you - that's the
> nicest thing anyone has said to me this week.

   Ohmigosh! Didn't _anybody_ wish you a Merry Christmas? ;^)

> 1. Application Fee - How Much and why? Refundable if not selected for
>    any reason?

   It's quite important to cover expenses here -- no more and no less.
Only the unexpended part should be refunded, IMHO.

   I'm worried that $20K may have a devastating effect on potential
African registrars, and make it _harder_ to achieve the geographical
balance that people want. :^(

> 2. Fee for credit check - Fair?

   Certainly a reasonable expense.

> 3. Registration procedure. n-day wait, or n-day publishing or both?
>    Define n (valid answers are 0 to 365 for n)

   n-day publishing is a good idea. I am not convinced that a majority
of courts would look any differently upon a waiting period than upon a
publication period.

   n=60 seems good enough to me.

> 4. Lottery or Objective Criteria?

   With or without a lottery, I'd prefer more objective criteria published
before applications are accepted.

   I'm more scared of creating too many gTLDs than too many registrars.
I'd accept a lottery to ensure geographical balance -- if and only if
we can't find some other way to satisfy that desire.

> 5. gTLDs selected by IAHC, CORE, or the registries (or some combination
>    thereof?)

   I'd accept IAHC choices, but only after a public comment period.

   I'm not confident that CORE will be a good decision-making body.

> 6. Shared only, exclusive only, shared on choice of registry, or
>    shared when feasable, exclusive until then?

   IAHC has made a shared-only proposal -- I'd stick with it. Later we
can investigate adding non-generic TLDs, some of which might be exclusive.

   Exclusive-only would reproduce all the problems we've had with NSI.
Shared is perfectly feasible with one overnight coding session -- we've
just been overwhelmed with creeping featuritis on the shared-registry
proposals vetted so far.

> 7. Finally, anything MISSING from the draft?

   I refuse to overwhelm a single posting with any more issues.

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>