Re: Standard Extensions

On 23 Aug 2012, at 13:35, Luis Muñoz wrote:

> The cynical point of view would be that established registries have  
> this as an incentive to not change their unique ways. After all,  
> they already have a market that is working for them. An existing  
> registry wishing to provide back end operations for a new gTLD knows  
> that there is a base of registrars that are able to connect "out of  
> the box". Why make it easier for other registries to compete for  
> that new gTLD?

In other words, you can have any colour of TLD you want as long as  
it's black. To misquote Henry Ford.

This starts to smell like an anti-competitive cartel: "If you don't  
conform to our world view, we won't play and you will fail. Have a  
nice day.".

So to get back to Patrik's original question, what can be done to  
reduce the number of extra extensions and registry (or registrar)  
foibles? Could this list define a minimum set of requirements and/or  
interoperability features which every EPP-capable registry or registry  
would be expected to implement?

I think the E of EPP may be the problem... :-)


_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg