RE: [registrars] Ross's Motion - Suggeseted Amendment

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I suggest we stick with the unsponsored gTLDs. The sTLD sponsor should
consult with their community on this topic and see if it makes sense for
them. I don't think we should get involved in that here. ccTLDs, I could
go either way, especially with those that market themselves as something
other than a ccTLD, but the politics of that could get us/ICANN bogged
down and slow any actual action.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 1:01 PM
To: Rob Hall
Cc: Registrars Mail List
Subject: Re: [registrars] Ross's Motion - Suggeseted Amendment

On 9/18/2003 2:07 PM Rob Hall noted that:


> Ross:  I agree it needs to suspend the current .com implementation.  I
am a
> little softer on the .museum folks, as I understand they have been
doing it
> for a while, and frankly, none of us gave a damn.  Given that they did
it
> with ICANN permission, I see no reason to back step them as well.
Just
> Verisign, who ignored process and went ahead on their own ... damn the
> torpedoes.

To borrow Vixie's words - its about expectations. .tv, .museum and .cc 
registrants expect wildcards in their TLD, as do application developers 
and ISPs.

No one expects this of .com, .net, .org, .info, .biz, .aero, .name or
.pro.

Anyone on this latter list must go through a community consultation 
before they can offer this service - in order that we can, as a 
"community" determine whether its reasonable to a) change our 
expectations regarding the status quo, or b) disallow the use of 
wildcards in a specific domain for specific reasons.

Drawing the lines seems very simple from my perspective.


-- 


                        -rwr