Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Single Registrant TLDs in VIWG Brussels report
- To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Single Registrant TLDs in VIWG Brussels report
- From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:38:13 -0400
On 6/9/10 3:26 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> Apples and oranges, Stephane. Mike made the comment:
>> There is no consumer protection or economic principle
>> that anyone has been able to demonstrate to me on how
>> registrars promote competition or choice.
> I was simply replying to that with an example of how
> the registrar model has promoted competition and choice.
Not one of Mike's better argumentative offerings, but as he's pointed
out previously, he's the champion of "single registrant" as a new type
of application, and as absurd as it is when marginal costs are
considered, "single registrant" continues to be conceptualized as
failing in the presence of a registrar function.
> That is not an argument for or against VI/CO. And as I
> have said many times, I am not against VI/CO. I am
> against jumping into it in an adhoc rush to appease
> various business plans.
> IMO, we either need to put a hold on the rollout until
> these issues can be fully considered and the issues
> resolved, or take a conservative approach to get the
> ball rolling and continue working with the goal of
> implementing any changes in future rounds. I prefer
> the latter, but would support either approach.
The middle course is to hold those applications which require some
non-trivial accommodation and allow those to proceed which do not.