> [email protected] <[email protected]> 2011-06-10 02:08
> > > At the Paris ICANN meeting I asked the Registrar Constituency members
> > > present which would be doing new gTLDs -- as registrars.
> > >
> > > No hands were raised.
>
> Which probably does not reflect what happens in reality... just see
> the rate of adoption of .XXX among registrars...
a 2004 round applicant, with some non-trival lead-time. the .post
trajectory should be similar, whenever it gets to delegation.
my question -- in 2008 -- was about registrar interest in a vastly
larger number, with vastly different inter-availability waits.
> (almost 100% already during a month of accreditations,
> if I take your own account of 60 "true" registrars below)
i really don't care what you take into account, given the substitution
of many-in-a-year with one-in-a-decade, as the registrar problem statement,
above.
> > > The Vertial Integration Botch (tm) now means that we've 600+600 as
> > > a design space. 600 registries (legacy ex-RRP-speakers, 2001+2004
> > > EPP-speakers, a "bigger N" number of 3166 registries, and ICANN's
> > > 500 (or whatever) of 201x registries, AND the same 60 registrars
> > > (ignoring the 600+ shell registrars that exist only for the 3pm
> > > race), the same "+N0" registrars pursuing local geo markets, AND
> > > each registry-as-a-registrar.
> However there are not 600+60 registry back-end providers, software and
> solutions.
> And I do not believe that each registrar wanting to be a gTLD
> operator will create from scratch a registry system.
> There are maybe
> 30 or 50 commercial provider providing parts or all of a registry
> solution (including current gTLD operators), a few open source software and companies
> building on them. You can even add all current ccTLDs operators
> (since some will be gTLD operators), you are still far from 600.
each registry operator enjoys the assumption that it acts independently
of all others, and is free to dork as it sees fit, as the 2001-to-present
variation shows. the smaller number of mature platform operators, all of
whom support two or more variations, line previous, may not reduce that
registrar-harming freedom of registry non-interdependence, and all self
hosting operators are limited only by the technology they license, or
build, and operate independently.
> So, in my view, there is still hope of some factorization of EPP
> extensions. Hence my attempt at a draft more than 2 years ago.
solving the 2004 problem has some utility.
-e
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.