RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Competition authorities
- To: "Antony Van Couvering" <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Competition authorities
- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 20:03:44 -0700
Antony, I am sure we could help them get something going through our
reseller program, either turnkey or API. Then they can put it where ever
they want on their own drop down. The only catch is they may need to do
some of their own translation for the site.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Competition authorities
From: Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, April 21, 2010 7:13 pm
To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Because there are likely to be -- if this doesn't take so long that
everyone's completely exhausted, morally and financially, before the new
gTLD round starts -- small registries that are simply not going to be
interesting to registrars (because of their size), or for which existing
registrars will not be appropriate (because they don't support the
registry's language, for instance). In these cases, it makes perfect
sense to have a registry and registrar integrated.
This is the case for many small ccTLDs, for instance, and they are a
good case in point. Even if (to pick on them) GoDaddy does decide to
carry .bt (Bhutan), it will be pretty hard to get to (low on a drop-down
list), and it certainly won't be in the Bhutanese language or alphabet.
That same dynamic will apply for .zulu or .kurd or .berber.
On Apr 21, 2010, at 5:11 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Why do people think that there will lots of application that include
> cross-ownership? for example in AVC message I felt like this was going to be
> a road block for every poor little new registry and I did not understand that.