NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Danny Younger <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Danny Younger <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 15 Sep 2006 05:51:11 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
Hi Mawaki,

The current Registry-Registrar separation model is not
the only model currently in use.  The .int registry
does in fact act as a registrar with respect to that
TLD.  This is an important consideration in that it
serves the need of a very small community.

The NGO community is also a relatively small group. 
If someone wanted to sponsor .ngo as a new TLD, why
would you require such a sponsor to necessarily use
registrars?  Why couldn't the sponsor handle the
limited amount of registrations in exactly the same
manner as the .int registry?

I do not view it as prudent from a policy perspective
to shackle new TLD applicants with a particular
distribution model -- they should be free to propose
whatever they deem would work best, even if that means
that they will act as both registry and registrar.

Let them be free to test out a proof-of-concept approach.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2