Re: [ga] Bizconst on new gTLDs.

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

Thomas and all assembly members or other interested parties,

  I as well as many others that have commented on this approach that
Stuart Lynn wishes to impose without consultation or measured
consensus of the stakeholders/users is one that is if his own
making and does not in any way approach the demand or desires
of the pent up demand for gTLD's.  Hence it would seem obvious
that Mr. Lynn is only interested in creating or maintaining a
scarcity in TLD's that he alone cannot reasonably determine
as necessary.  It also again shows ICANN's willingness to
thwart their own often touted RFC's from the IETF, in this case
namely RFC 1591.

  Of course this debate has been raging for at least 5 years
that I am aware of, and continues to be gerrymandered in such a way
as to thwart free enterprise in the gTLD arena.  I, amongst a host
of other stakeholders/users, find such a position to be insupportable
and grossly unconvincing.

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> http://forum.icann.org/gtld-plan-comments/general/pdf00000.pdf
>
> The business constituency has posted, in response to the Lynn plan,
> a position paper on the introduction of new gTLDs.  In that position
> paper, the BC advocates a "logical names space" which should be
> established according to a set of principles.  All new gTLDs would,
> according to the paper, be sponsored/restricted.
>
> The principles proposed are very high-level, and somewhat nebulous.
> Particularly irritating is the combination of principle 1
> (Differentiation, "A gTLD must be clearly differentiated from other
> gTLDs.") and 4 (Competition, "A gTLD must create value-added
> competition"), in combination with this note later in the text: "The
> structure does not imply a rapid expansion. The choice of one name
> will preclude future non-differentiated choices."
>
> I may quite well be mis-reading this -- but wouldn't this proposal
> boil down to establishing a structure in which overlap between the
> "relevant publics" for different gTLDs would be minimized?  I.e.,
> wouldn't this proposal effectively reduce competition between gTLDs
> to the minimum achievable [given the constraint that some new gTLDs
> must be added]?
>
> On a side note, I find the proposal's focus on sponsored/restricted
> gTLDs rather courageous, given that there is not a single
> sponsored/restricted gTLD which has proven to be reasonably
> successful.  On the other hand, the sheer number of registrations in
> .info seems to indicate that the market indeed has demand for
> unrestricted/unsponsored gTLDs...
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.net/
> --
> 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 for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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