Re: [wg-c] There is no "consensus"

[Craig Simon <cls@flywheel.com>]

Javier wrote:
> 
> Craig,
> 
> >It seems to me that starting with the other CORE 7 minus .web as shared
> >gTLD is stork-like and not fair (and .arts is claimed anyway, isn't
           ^^^^^^^^^^
I meant ostrich-like, implying intentional avoidance of the problem.


> >it?).  If you want to talk about publicly vetted suggestions for new
> >TLDs, Javier, .web is it. And not because of Chris Ambler's "branding,"
> >but because it's a generic term that resonates globally.
> 
> This is a good definition, a global term. But, why do you think it makes it
> non-acceptable. Should we not look for terms of this type?

Perhaps it once made some sense to do so, for the sake of slotting SLD
registrations into proper categories, but no longer. The cat is out of
the bag, as we say. If it's not required for com/net/org, why impose it
on others? (And I would vociferously oppose any attempt to set back the
clock and reimpose restrictions). 

But I actually don't think it was ever necessary to slot gTLD
registrations. I have no problem with individuals who use the
NSI-operated gTLDs for personal use. Where else can they go?  

> 
> Remember that the reason why CORE decided to go for those 7 gTLD was
> because they were the best the IAHC process could come out with after long
> public consultation. As any other gTLD, they do not belong to anybody, not
> to CORE, not to anybody else.
> 
> Javier

The virtue of starting with .web as a gTLD is that it resonates (I think
we all agree), and this accessibility to mindshare would make it easier
for the users/consumers in the public to accept the idea of new gTLDs,
especially after all the uncertainties of the last few years. My point
is that .web should be open to every and all type of SLD registration,
as should the other new gTLDs which might be added to the IANA root.

I don't think the IAHC's processes reflected a whole lot of public
feedback. The group got together behind closed doors and put together a
reasonable and informed though surprisingly short list. The only change
they made after announcing the seven candidates was to substitute .shop
for .store.   Then the IAHC made a huge mistake by not even mentioning
any intent to proceed adding names after the first seven were working
properly.

There were other public processes. Here's a list of all the TLD requests
sent to IANA submitted by more than one person, sorted by descending
count. (from
http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/00990.html )


7	.INC
6	.WWW
6	.XXX
5	.BIZ
5	.SEX
5	.WEB
4	.ALT
4	.ART
4	.FAM
4	.LAW
4	.MED
4	.PER
4	.USA
3	.CORP
3	.ENT
3	.EUR
3	.INFO
3	.ISP
3	.LTD
3	.MALL
2	.AIR
2	.CAR
2	.ETC
2	.EURO
2	.GROUP
2	.GVT
2	.HOME
2	.HOT
2	.IND
2	.MEDIA
2	.MUSIC
2	.NEWS
2	.NPO
2	.PHONE
2	.PUB
2	.SRV
2	.TRADE
2	.UNI

This is one useful indicator of community preference for one new gTLD
over the other. By the way, with regard to what I was saying about .sex
before, and .xxx by implication, is that I posit the following rule: Any
gTLD submission reported by Jon Postel at the above-mentioned site
should be added to a shared registry system if that model is chosen.
This would be after contended gTLDs are added, and before new
submissions are solicited.  I presume that registrars would be allowed
to decide whether or not they will be selling into those gTLDs, but the
registry would have to have it, based on the algorithm of making sure
all the names in Postel's list be added. Using that list cools the
political hot potato.
<Shameless plug for consideration of meta issues>

I think we can all admit that nothing is technically broken with the
DNS. There is no technical reason to add gTLDs. 

And there is no technical reason that many hundreds or few thousand
can't be added. There is certainly no technical reason that proprietary
gTLDs can't be added to the root, and the same is probably true of a
CORE-style registry, though that technology remains unproven.

The problems are social and adminstrative. 

The idea in my view is to add so many gTLDs that the price for new SLD
registrations will be driven down.

I like the idea of shared gTLDs because I think the concept of name
portability protects the consumer, while dispersing the profit-making
opportunities of the domain name market more widely among registrars. I
expect there can be many more registrars than gTLDs, amd that
registrations service will become just one of many values that ISPs can
offer to their customers. 

But, based on the sentiment that it's better for a system to be allowed
to grow rather than be capped forever, I would prefer to see proprietary
gTLDs added rather than none at all.

The more I mull these things over, the more I see how the trademark
industry has impeded expansion of the system because of its fears that
the DNS expansion will undermine power of branding. I think these fears
are exaggerated. We make the same mistake if we try to brand gTLDs with
some sort of category requirement. Self-selection works fine.  The DNS
is not a directory service.

<Shameless plug/>

So, if ICANN can get its act together and properly constitute itself in
an open and accountable way, and you folks decide to accept my proposed
compromise, we could have a big launch for .web on say, Jan 1, 2000 zero
hour GMT. IODesign's present cusotmers (all those registered as of now,
please, and not between now and the end of the year) would get a free
pass into ICANN's root, and IODesign as registrar would get a 30 day
headstart as the exclusive .web registrar before the other ICANN
registrars kick in.  Chris hosts a big bash for us all New Year's eve in
SLOtown and everybody is all smiles on the front page of the New York
Times New Year's Day. How does that sound?

Don't say I don't believe in happy endings.


Craig Simon