Geographical management of new gTLDs? (was Re: [wg-c] There is no "consensus" )

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On 18 July 1999, Craig Simon <cls@flywheel.com> wrote:

[...snip]

>
>Also, the reason .us failed to catch on, in my view, is because Postel's
>experiment in sharing extensible delegation authority among a widely
>dispersed number of self-selected volunteers was a major flop. His
>foresight was wrong. He thought the geographic scheme would be a good
>way to enlist free help around the country without imposing a huge
>administrative burden on IANA (I heard him say so), but it led to system
>that is clearly cumbersome and confusing to use. In addition: 1) People
>would rather adopt names whose semantics reflect a globalized appeal
>rather than a localized point-of-contact, and; 2) a highly advertised
>and accessible market for names in com/net/org existed.  If IANA had
>established itself as a clear point of contact for the .US registry
>rather than forcing people to jump through so many hoops to find out who
>their local contacts were, .us would have done much better, though I
>doubt it would ever have done better than com/net/org... generics have
>much more innate appeal on the Internet than localized zones.

[...snip ]

I'm still undecided that we should be deciding to limit the count of
the new TLDs.  If we do limit the count, we should keep our mouths
shut about WHICH TLDs get added.  If we specify which TLDs get added,
we should not take a stance on limiting the count.  As Milton has
stated, we should be willing to let the market decide.  For us to both
specify a limit on the number of new TLDs and to name these TLDs
ourselves is just too presumptuous, and allows this body far too much
power, financially, over certain entites.  If we specify a limit on
the number of new TLDs, and we name those TLDs, we've just given an
unfair (dis)advantage to various companies.

However, is there anything wrong* with just letting the ccTLD
registr[ies/ars] administer the new gTLDs in a geographical manner, as
Milton proposed?  In this way, we can perhaps avoid the failings of the
.us system (cumbersome, confusing), while keeping with an established
geographical system.

(* NOTE:  By "wrong", I mean, is there anything technologically or
legally preventing this from happening?  I'm fully aware that this 
proposal would upset certain parties.  But that's not a reason to let
it go unexplored.)


Perhaps some of the ccTLD folks would like to speak to this?

I would like to mention that, were this to come about, I'd like to see
some form of mechanism in place for the ccTLDs that would allow 
individuals (i.e., non-organizational, non-commercial, private citizens)
to purchase SLDs in the new TLDs.  As I understand it, there are some 
ccTLDs which currently disallow this.

-- 
Mark C. Langston	     			Let your voice be heard:
mark@bitshift.org				     http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin					    http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA					     http://www.dnso.org