At 08:36 AM 4/28/99 -0700, you wrote:
>This new Candidate Constituency appears to be in head on competition
>with the NSI sponsored gTLD constituency, and TKDA is focused on
>including exactly those prosp[ective new gTLDs that the NSI gTLD
>constituency ignores.
>
>So, somewhere down the line, it is going to be required that these two
>candidate constituencies get together to form one out of both, or for
>one to kill the other off.
>
>I suggest that melding both into one is the much preferred resolution.
>
>Further, since the TLDA is less restricted, I suggest that is be used
>as the base foundation from which to build the meld.
>
>I find it to be an exceptional instance of hubris for NSI to claim to
>be the sole representative of the entire gTLD "constituency" when it
>is so patently clear that thiiis entire DNS MESS has grown up out of
>the contentiousness of plans to add new gTLDs.
>
>Best...\Stef
That was my thinking too, but the problems NSI (and other established
IANA approved production registries) have are not the same things
as what prospective registries face. Politically, a new tld registries
group has more in common with a new registrars group.
I havn't had the chance to talk to Telage or anybody at NSI
about their group, but it seemed form the writings that there
was a closed/open model, and thought that they were the
open side to that, a "open tld" contingency.
The few tlds I run are both open and closed.
The group we formed is more or less a contnuation of the NewDom
list Community, as originally conceived, and will operate in the
same sprit and openness.
So, given all these points I can actually at least in my mind,
rationalized there two groups.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Those who give up a little freedom for a little security
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one"
--Thomas Jefferson
