<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Depressing consequences
- To: "'Milton L Mueller'" <mueller@xxxxxxx>, "'Antony Van Couvering'" <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Depressing consequences
- From: "Drazek, Keith" <Keith.Drazek@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:01:04 -0400
By what standard/definition?
-----Original Message-----
From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 4:00 PM
To: Drazek, Keith; 'Antony Van Couvering'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Depressing consequences
And how many of those new TLDs can be considered successful?
> Milton, while the current separation system may have originally been
> designed to address the legacy monopoly of .com/.net/.org, it was also
> in place for all subsequent new TLDs before their first domains were
> registered. The 15% ownership cap and functional separation
> requirements extended well beyond "incumbent registries with market
> power in established TLDs." Neustar, Afilias, Tralliance, Telnic and
> the rest were once start-ups too. Regards, Keith
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|