Re: [wg-c-1] WORK: Question #1 New GTLDs

["Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>]

> Yes, I think specific TLDs should be proposed through a working 
> group mechanism, and the output of the WG should be the 
> charter. 

And I must strongly disagree. This would be mandating the content
and, to a large degree, the business model of the company that
would run the registry. Without even considering the "right or
wrong" of this action, it is simply not necessary.

> However, if there is an explict WG process for development of 
> charters, then we will never reach anywhere near that number.  
> That's a thousand a year for 30 years...

Alternately, if the criteria to be a registry were sufficiently strict
(while being fair and consistent), the same goal would be
accomplished.

In a market-driven system, 30,000 new TLDs would never
survive. The value of the "real-estate" would be diminished to
the point that price and services would determine success.
I would argue that this is how it should be.

> I don't think this will work.  I don't think ICANN can accept 
> any names with significant intellectual property encumberances.  If 
> indeed CORE has TM'd their TLDs, then they should not be accepted 
> unless CORE releases the names to the public domain or some such 
> thing.  Likewise with any other TLDs.  I don't think there is much 
> hope of getting many of the Alternic list released to the public.  
> OTOH, CORE might very well be interested in signing their names over 
> to ICANN or the public domain (or whatever the equivalent would be 
> for TMs, if there is an equivalent).

I am going to argue that there is a considerable-enough number of
prospective registries, all with intellectual property claims on their
TLDs, that ICANN would find itself in a very precarious legal position
if it were to exclude them.

I would also argue that the position would be even more troublesome
if ICANN were to make, as a condition of inclusion, the requirement
that the registry relinquish property rights to ICANN.

If, however, the question of "which TLDs to add" is removed to the
point that a qualifying registry then picks its TLD, this problem is
removed. The issue of intellectual property interference is strictly
the problem of the registry, who could be contractually required
to hold ICANN harmless for its (the registry's) choice of TLD.

Christopher