<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [registrars] Proposed short term solution to registry contention
- To: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [registrars] Proposed short term solution to registry contention
- From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:09:27 +0000
- Cc: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Registrars Constituency" <registrars@xxxxxxxx>, brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:53:32 +1000." <57AD40AED823A7439D25CD09604BFB546A4D08@balius.mit>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Howdy Bruce,
> Does that mean you would prefer a different entity run the auction
> system rather than the registry?
Yes. Unless of course I wake up tomorrow running .com.
> I guess this could be done using a competitive tender process operated
> by ICANN to operate the ".com registry auction system" for names about
> to be re-released. Problem is it would take time.
That's one avenue. Another is to form a coop entity and make accredition
the test for coop membership, and tell ICANN that is where we want the
"deleted front-end" in expiring com/net/org names to reside -- not as a
registry service, but as a registrar cooperative service.
Faster than letting ICANN tender a bid sometime after hell freezes over,
and safer than expanding the definition of registry service, and safer
than letting things continue becoming more and more fragmentary.
Cheers,
Eric
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|