[ga-full] Re: New gTLDs [Was: RE: [ga] Older registrations]

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Roberto and all assembly members,

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Simon Higgs wrote:
> >
> >I apologize to Harald & Elisabeth for the diversion from GA business.
> >
>
> I believe that I contributed myself very much to this "diversion from GA
>  business" with my original question about "why?" we are still here
> discussing about the "if" new gTLDs are going to be added sometimes
> soon.

  First off this discussion is NOT a diversion of GA business.  In fact it
is or
should be precisely the GA's business as the ICANN bylaws clearly indicate
and has been pointed out before on this very list.  Second, your question as
to
why new gTLD's should be added is both a good one and has been answered
or at least responded to many times before also from various assembly
members.

  The main reasons new gTLD's should be added or have been proposed
and also mandated by the White Paper, that we [INEGroup] have garnered
are as follows:

1.) The .COM, .ORG, .NET address spaces (gTLD's), and most especially
      .COM are just about out of good names and are very flat as a result.

2.) That the market demand seems to be known to be fairly great, and is
     perceived to be even greater.

3.) Additional registries for new gTLD's are needed to adequately provide
for
     the White Paper mandate of providing for real competition in the DNS.

  No these reasons as to "Why" as you rightly indicate are not all of the
good
reasons to be sure but seem to be the primary ones, although possibly
differently
stated that we [INEGRoup] have noted as well as many others whom have
been participating in good faith in these discussions.

>
>
> - snip Dribble here -
>
> What puzzles me most is the fact that the "candidate-Registries" seem to
>  me (please correct me if I am wrong) arguing more on the relative
> rights and priorities over competing parties than trying to join forces
> to win the resistence of the forces that oppose the introduction of new
> gTLDs altogether.

  Competing parties or approaches are not necessarily a negative thing when
considering additional registries and gTLD's. In fact this is a healthy
approach
for a market driven global economic model that is somewhat complex.  These
competing ideas still indicate that new Registries and gTLD's are needed
both in
the DNS and the IP arena so as to provide for choices for a multisegmented
market place in the Internet.  Hence I find your comment above of
questionable
value and your conclusion below in serious doubt...

>
>
> This strategy seems suicide to me.
>
> Regards
> Roberto
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html