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

[Ivan Pope <ivan@netnames.com>]

> > 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.

What I mean is that rather than select an arbitary set of gTLDs, we come up
with an approach that will let others who come after us define gTLDs. This
would be some form of ruleset that would allow gTLDs to 'emerge'. Saying
this is a neutral position - it means that I don't have a particular view on
any gTLDs, but I do believe that the wider community and, yes, business in
the end, will come up with gTLDs that work.
And, even better, we will bequeath to our successors a system that will
allow them to expand the namespace without having to go back to the drawing
board each time.

> > > 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

There is no 'proposal on the table'. Or, there is no proposal on the table
at this Working Group, unless someone is specifically proposing these seven.
But, if they are I believe a)it is premature at this stage to be proposing
specific gTLDs (putting the cart before the horse I believe) and b)it
shouldn't be the Chair who is doing this at this stage. 

> 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.

It would be instructive to know the details of how these names were chosen.
Then we could have some idea of how the 'next' set are to be chosen.
The way this is going at the moment, this Working Group only seems
interested in legitimising the introduction of a stale set of proposed gTLDs
and not at all in setting out an imaginative way forward.
Where's the vision? Where's the longer term view? What are we giving the
world? I mean, if ICANN wants to choose these 7 gTLDs, there is absolutely
nothing in the world to stop them doing this, and they surely don't need us
to point out to them that these exist?

> 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.

How about you discuss the 'objective advantages' of the 7 above? That would
be a start - to back up your worldview with some objective input. 
And lets get creative.
Ivan