DNSO constituencies

["Richard J. Sexton" <richard@sexton.com>]

>    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")? 

Yes. A TLD like say, .NU has more in common with with .com than say
(the very restrictuve .JP). Whereas .INT is the most restritive TLD
extant and it's operation has very little in common with "other iTLDS".

In other words, charteed TLDS that are not open to everybody usually
have a mission or mandate to fulfill, a taxonomy or ontology to build
in short a job to do. Open TLDS exist to sell/register as many domains
as possible. 

They're two very differrnt problem sets and it's difficult to see how
one organization can "serve those two masters" effectively.


--
richard@dns.list    sexton@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
"Those who give up a little freedom for a little security
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one"
               --Thomas Jefferson