Re: [ga] new TLDs

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 12:55 PM 9/1/00 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

It's very easy to avoid a land rush. But the big money interests have no 
incentive to participate in this way. Especially if it prevents them from 
getting their 10x investment back in under 2 years. Their accountability to 
their shareholders is diametrically opposed to preventing a land rush. Even 
the so-called non-profits like CORE showed us not only the corporate greed 
coming from it's membership, but the win-at-all-costs mentality to control 
the root.

So what does ICANN create as a solution? A $50,000 barrier to entry 
allowing only those with land-rush business models through the door. This 
does one thing, and, as Otho correctly states, it duplicates all the 
problems in .COM.

Duplication of stupidity is a very bad thing. Especially when it involves 
the UDRP. This is partly why the trademark lobby has lobbied against new 
TLDs. They've got the right idea, but they've gone about it with myopic 
vision, ignoring the IP requirements of the internet community beyond the 
existing trademark holders.

As to how to avoid the land rush. Let's put it this way, NSI used to 
practice this while they were funded by the NSF. This takes us back to 
RFC1074 (and it's successor - RFC1591) and Draft-Postel.

>Simon,
>I would be interested to know how you avoid a land
>rush. I enjoyed documenting to the ICANN what
>our brave today world will do with this: it is
>tremendously fun. Experts, consulting, special
>programs, tv shows and games, domain names
>lotteries and chases, film scenarios, books, etc...
>and lawyers decades. Last year it was Y2K, it will
>the "C3" (the ".COM clones century'). Probably
>only a few will sue the ICANN and NSI for failing
>to organize the protection of their rights, but then
>probably for millions, but private TLDs will bloom
>around only to reproduce the fun!!!
>Jefsey
>
>At 11:26 01/09/00, you wrote:
>>At 11:26 PM 8/31/00 -0400, Attyross@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>Thanks for sharing Otho. This is old news. And it doesn't have to happen 
>>this way.
>>
>>May I point out that the get-rich-quick crowd (CORE demonstrated this 
>>mentality to us in 1997) subscribe to this doctrine. Others, like myself, 
>>who have more concern for the stability of the internet, know how to 
>>introduce new TLDs without the land rush.
>>
>>The problem is we don't know if ICANN is serious this time around (this 
>>is the third time around for me), or whether it's just a money raising 
>>exercise @ $50,000 per application with no guarantees, while selling out 
>>to special interests behind the scenes.
>>
>>The amount of money is much less important than the stability of the 
>>application process. Without some kind of assurance, the application 
>>process can only be perceived as unstable.
>>
>>>OK.  I rarely post to this list, but I have something to say.
>>>I have received several emails recently that basically said
>>>everybody will immediately register everything in any new TLD
>>>that is put up.  I don't know if this is good or not.  Yes, I am
>>>in the IP group, but I am independent and I thought I should
>>>share this observation.
>>>Otho Ross
>>
>>
>>Best Regards,
>>
>>Simon Higgs
>>
>>--
>>It's a feature not a bug...
>>
>>--
>>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
>
>--
>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


Best Regards,

Simon Higgs

--
It's a feature not a bug...

--
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