ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[At-Large Advisory Committee]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [alac] new gTLDs

  • To: Vittorio Bertola <vb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [alac] new gTLDs
  • From: Thomas Roessler <roessler-mobile@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 15:45:01 +0200

On 2003-03-31 22:26:27 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> - Applicants should also be allowed to present more than one
> technical option to establish the registry - for example, a plan
> to develop internal operations *and* tentative agreements with
> existing registry operators as a fallback in case the (more
> complex) internal plan fails. Otherwise everyone will go for the
> existing registries just to be sure not to lose points on that
> evaluation item. The odds of practical implementation are not
> easily foreseeable, so the evaluation should be focused on the
> technical and managerial know-how of the applicant, rather than
> on its current plan, which may be outdated anyway by the time the
> TLD is awarded. You want to be sure that these people can do it,
> not to force them to state in advance up to the last detail how
> they will do it.

I think that Ross Rader's approach (as presented in Rio by Bret
Fausett) is really the best thing to do about this: Introduce an
accreditation regime for existing and prospective (!) registries,
which checks minimal technical thresholds. Once a TLD proposal comes
with an accredited registry operator (be it internal or external),
that proposal should be considered fine on the technical side.

With this approach, ICANN could finally create a competitive market
on which registry operators can act -- they'd have to compete in
terms of technical quality, price, services etc. in order to attract
gTLD delegees.

Thomas Roessler                 <roessler-mobile@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy