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

[Onno Hovers <onno@surfer.xs4all.nl>]

Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com> wrote:
> 	Three thoughts:

> [....]

> 	I'm especially concerned about ICANN picking all of the new TLDs because
> it seems to me that this is the approach that centralizes the greatest
> degree of decisionmaking authority at the top.  I think it's important to
> expand the name space -- but as ICANN takes its first few halting steps, I
> don't think this is the time to give it any more decisionmaking power than
> it has to have.

There are some points that I would like to make. 
1) Root namespace *is finite*. 
2) It is very likely that something like the domain name system will
   still be used 30 (maybe even 100) years from now.

I am worried because many of the people in this working group are only
considering the near-term effects of their decisions. In the near term
there is a definite need for an expansion of namespace and more competition.

But what effect will it have in the long-term? Is it fair to give the best
gTLD namespace to those who come early, while only keeping some crumbles for
those who come late? I am concerned that this will happen when we open 
the root namespace to everyone who wants to start a registry.

> 	3. A few people have urged that we need to keep the number of new gTLDs
> small (say, 6 or 7) because trademark interests will lobby hard against a
> larger number. To the extent that this thinking is based on "practical
> political reality," as opposed to the view that it would in fact be bad
> policy to add more than a small number of new gTLDs, it may be misplaced.
> Fact is, whatever number this WG may come up with, there will be folks from
> the trademark community lobbying ICANN to cut it in half, because that's
> where they see their interest.  Let's make a recommendation, if we can,
> based on our vision of good policy; I can guarantee that "practical
> political reality" will still get its due later in the process.

I agree with that point. On the one hand the businesses dependent on
trademarks have had to pay the highest price for cleaning up after
the first-come first-served don't-ask-questions policy. These
businesses are afraid that it will happen again. 
On the other hand, if the trademark interests act like a dark
force that will lobby against TLDs regardless of how much we have
considered the trademark community in these decisions, there is
no point in considering their demands. 

Regards,
-- 
Onno Hovers (onno@surfer.xs4all.nl)