[NA-Discuss] Connecting.nyc Inc.- ALS Application 171

ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Thu Nov 1 16:13:39 UTC 2012

> ...
> ... Nearly all of the new TLD applicants use one 
> of a handful of familiar registry operators as back end operators, and the 
> .NYC application says that their back end is Neustar.  Nothing sinister 
> about that.
> But Neustar isn't defining .NYC's registration rules, marketing plan, or 
> other stuff beyond registry operations.  That's the bit I was wondering 
> about.


choice of backends may limit tenant policy and/or operational practice,
e.g., multi-step registration eligibility check, performed by the .coop,
.museum and .cat operators and a very few registrars.

constraint(s) may be present in the tenant's choices for "sunrise" and
"landrush" registrations prior to general availability.

as you've observed on several occasions, in several venues, these have,
in the presence of other constraints now reduced or eliminated, chiefly
the must-use-third-party-registrars requirement, profoundly limited the
uptake, and apparent utility, of name spaces operated by registry agreement
holders utilizing own, or policied third-party registry operators and
retail channels. 

i was personally amused when i read the doitt's original sollicitation,
and found "mandatory to implement" references [1] to xrp -- the protocol
i personally advocated for, in whole and in parts, in the pre-ietf group
of implementors, and in the ietf epp working group, while employed by

i think it is incorrect to observe that the doitt arrived at its choice of
contractor uninformed by neustar, and not surprisingly selected neustar as
its initial contractor to prepare its bid. i think it is also incorrect to
speculate that the doitt will be unable to exercise agency during the
neustar contract period, however, the doitt goals reflected in its initial,
intermediate, and final instructions to bidders, in which i participated
fully while consulting for core, were split between two very difficult to
simultaniously operationalize goals -- the public interest and short term
revenue maximization.

the doitt's eventual committal to one, or the other, of these two basic
business models, should be evident no later than the publication of the
applicant's "sunrise" plan.


i concur with your recital of tom's statement of position in the only
public hearing the current administration allowed.


[1] i'll be happy to dig up my bidders' questions to the doitt to clarify
what the doitt ment by mandating implementation of xrp and share that,
and the doitt's response, should either of you or care to see the originals.

More information about the NA-Discuss mailing list