Re: [wg-c] RE: [wg-c-1] Next question: Which gTLDs? How many?

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 10:32:05AM +0100, Ivan Pope wrote:
[...]
> > I personally think that it should be the community to choose. 
> 
> Do you mean that ICANN should choose all gTLDs itself? If so, we should look
> at the mechanism by which names would be selected rather than attempt to
> propose an arbitary set (with all the baggage your arbitary set carry).

To the extent that the content of the TLD name space represents 
policy (and I think that extent is pretty extended), then the names 
in the TLD name space should be determined by the DNSO.

The IAHC set of names were in fact chosen with a large number of
policy considerations in mind.  At *some* point, of course, the
choice becomes arbitrary -- .biz as opposed to .firm, for example,
both meet the policy consideration of providing a meaningful
competitive alternative to .com.  There are many possibilities that
would fit in the niche occupied by .nom, etc.  Hmm. .etc -- I like 
the ring....

> > Otherwise all
> > new gTLDs would only be oriented to "be sold" and not to serve the
> > community. gTLDs such as ".arts" which may add much more 
> > richness to the
> > name space will not be added, because others may bring in more money.
> 
> This statement implies that we propose a limited number of gTLDs and then
> let the force of commerce choose them. I'm sure we can be more sophisticated
> than that.

Not sure what you mean by that.
> > There is a proposal on the table for 7 new gTLDs. It was a 
> > list that was
> > reached after long public consultation.
> > 
> > .firm .info .web .arts .rec .nom .shop
> 
> I think this assertion is hugely contentious and I feel it just allows old
> arguments to be reopened.  Firstly, these are the POC/CORE set.

That's a *feature*, not a bug -- that means that they have already had 
a great deal of comment and public exposure.

> Secondly,
> they have been condemned often enough in the past as a bad choice.

The Pope has been widely criticized as well.

> Thirdly,
> I believe that CORE has applied for Trademark status on these.

This is a sticky issue.  In fact, I could only support these names on
the condition that CORE in some definitive legal way give control of
any TM or other IP rights to ICANN, in accord with what I have argued
in the past.  If not, then CORE is just another proprietary registry
wannabe, and I will be forced to oppose them. 

That being said, I remain fairly confident that CORE would turn over 
such rights to ICANN in a heartbeat if it meant getting the new 
names in the root.  

CAVEAT: I of course do NOT speak for CORE, and I understand quite 
well that they are walking a careful strategic line based on the 
uncertaintity revolving around the issue of proprietary TLDs.

Assuming the rosy view, where CORE voluntarily gives control over 
the names to ICANN, then these names are the best available, by 
objective procedural standards.  If you can find other names with 
the same combination of public comment and exposure, plus being free 
of litigation concerns, then I would support those, as well.

There is, of course, the major exception of .web, which is under a
cloud because of IODesign's claim.  That's why I proposed that we
only use six of the names, and leave .web out.

There is also the issue of what to do about the preregistrations some
CORE registrars have done.  Once again I probably part ways with my
CORE friends -- I would just dump them, just as I would dump
IODesign's pre-registrations. 

[...]
> 
> I absolutely reject the notion that this gets us anywhere near an agreement
> or even a working proposal. This is just rehashing the CORE/POC position

I can't speak for Javier, but my position is *not* a rehash of the 
IAHC proposal.  Instead it is based on current realities -- those 
names have worldwide recognition -- far more than *any* other 
proposed TLDs.  Despite what you say, they have a lengthy public 
process behind them.  And, if CORE cooperates, they give us a very 
clean slate from an IP conflict point of view.

These are objective, concrete advantages.  I realize that there will 
be some individuals that will have emotional problems with this, and 
will doubtless scream very loud, but that's fundamentally childish.  
Furthermore, I am perfectly willing to consider other names -- I 
would just like to see their objective advantages discussed.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain