[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-c] A counterproposal
On Sat, Jul 17, 1999 at 01:06:32AM -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
[...]
> Let me put this proposal on the table:
> Whatever solution regarding new gTLDs we adopt should meet the following
> criteria:
>* it should not create any special economic advantages or disadvantages to
>particular players in the domain name market.
This is problematic.
One companies advantage is another companies disadvantage. I
certainly think that we should be sensitive to this issue, but the
definition of "advantage" and "disadvantage" are going depend on
where you sit.
Perhaps you can define "special economic advantage" it a less
ambiguous manner?
>* it should ensure that the number of new gTLDs is large enough to undermine
>the market power of any registry. In other words, it should be a *lot* more
>than seven, more in the neighborhood of 50 or 60. (This solution is better for
>trademark owners, by the way--a constrained name space encourages
>cybersquatting.)
While I am perfectly content to propose 50 or 60, I don't think you
will convince the TM people that you understand their well-being
better than they do, and, as a practical political reality, I think
we are forced to keep the initial set small. That's why I proposed
a small set of 6 to begin with -- I simply don't think many more
will be acceptable. Perhaps one of the TM people could speak to
this issue?
>* it should treat all registries that have registered names in "unrecognized"
>gTLDs (i.e., those outside the NTIA/ICANN root) equally. IOD, Name.space,
>AlterNIC, CORE--all are in the same boat and should be treated exactly the
>same.
Indeed, I agree totally. Any new gTLD should, in my opinion, start
completely fresh. No SLDs should be grandfathered in the registry.
No TLD zone should enter the root pre-populated with registrations.
That should be a basic condition.
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain