This is something I suggested over a year ago. I never saw a reason that ccTLDs and
gTLDs had to be treated differently. In this model, they are. What's more, a closed
TLD suits a lot of issues MHSC has had during these debates. KISS ... got to love it!
Only two classes of TLD ... who'd a thunk it!
-----------------------------
Roeland M.J. Meyer
Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------
You can always tell the people that are forging the new frontier.
They're the ones with arrows sticking out of their backs.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bret
> A. Fausett
> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 1999 11:14 AM
> To: IFWP
> Subject: Re: [IFWP] Discussion of Constituency Formation
>
>
> Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> >gTLD registrieS ? There's only one... or does this mean "prospective
> >registreis" ?
>
> Constituencies are supposed to self-define, so it means what the group
> decides it means. From what I've read on the lists, there is support for
> including "prospective registries."
>
> ICANN has asked for comment, however, on whether the gTLD and ccTLD
> distinction should be dropped in favor of an "open TLD" and "closed TLD"
> distinction. See below.
>
> -- Bret
>
> =-----------------------------------------------------------=
>
> >From http://www.icann.org/dnso/dnsoupdate.html
> Further Comment Requested:
>
> In order to more fully explore an issue raised by one comment submitted
> in reaction to the draft ICANN Bylaw changes the ICANN Board seeks
> further comment on the following question:
>
> Should the initial DNSO Constituencies currently identified as "ccTLD
> registries" and "gTLD registries" be re-categorized as "open registries"
> and "closed registries," identified according to whether the registry is
> open to any registrant, worldwide ("open"), or is instead limited to
> certain registrants based on geography, intended use, or other criteria
> ("closed")?
>
> Please submit comments to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> =-----------------------------------------------------------=
>
