Re: [wg-c] Who should vote for new gTLDs

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

	I've been thinking about something that may be causing us (the WG members)
to talk past each other — it lies in the degree to which the answers to our
questions turn on the issue of *how many* new TLDs ICANN should create in
the short to medium term.  I'll set forth two polar cases to illustrate my
point.

	Imagine first that ICANN creates a whole lot of new gTLDs -- say, a
hundred or so.  In that context, it seems to me that the best way to allow
"the Internet community" to decide on new TLDs is to allow the new
registries to establish the TLDs they think people will want, so that
members of the Internet community can decide for themselves which ones
they'll patronize (by registering domains there).  It would make sense for
some of those registries to be for-profit:  The competition between TLDs
will encourage those registries to do innovative things, will constrain
their prices, will lead to better service, and will ensure that no new TLD
operator becomes an instant millionaire simply because of his market position.

	Imagine, on the other hand, that ICANN creates very few new TLDs -- say,
three -- and stops there.  Here the arguments for a competitive system
would be weaker, because there wouldn't be enough new registries to support
any actual competition.  Any new TLD registry that ICANN selected would
have a tremendous market position simply by virtue of having been selected.
 The question of who chooses the new TLD strings would come down to one of
either (a) a small group of people on the Names Council choosing, based on
their idea of what the Net community wants; or (b) a small group of new TLD
operators choosing, based on *their* idea of what the Net community wants.
(I suspect that the two groups would pick similar sets of TLDs.)

	I think it's safe to assume that in the short to medium term, ICANN will
authorize some number of TLDs falling in between these extreme cases: fewer
than 100, and more than three.  My own thoughts are that we'll be much
better off if ICANN aims for the high side -- that is, if it embraces a
"lots of TLDs" approach.  That's open to objection; in particular, some
folks argue that such an approach is *politically* infeasible, so we ought
simply to forget about it.   But I think it's useful to bring this question
out in the open, rather than leaving it as an unarticulated assumption of
various folks' positions.

Jon


Jon Weinberg
weinberg@msen.com
http://www.law.wayne.edu/weinberg