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

["'Kent Crispin'" <kent@songbird.com>]

On Tue, Jul 27, 1999 at 09:56:50PM -0400, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> 
> Kent, I found your logic and discussion very helpful. Particularly noting
> that the "policy" is probably a place to start when considering a new gTLD.
> On the idea of a "privacy" tld, I guess I'd also like to hear from ISPs
> around the world, who essentially provide that kind of privacy to their
> subscribers, and whose business models might be sharply impacted by
> "personal" gTLD space.. It's just a consideration which I would throw out,
> which I've discussed with some small ISPs.  From the business perspective, I
> just stuggle with how we find the necessary 

I eagerly await the rest of your message :-)

Froomkin indicates that it might be necessary to restrict .priv
(let's say) to non-commercial use, and notes that it would be
difficult to define.  It would be even more difficult to enforce, if
the TLD became popular.  Noting also that he indicates that the
registry might have to charge considerably more to support this
policy, so all in all, I think, there are difficulties with the 
idea.  But it's possible that those issues could be resolved, and I 
would be perfectly willing to see a WG spun off to discuss it.

Frankly, the .naa TLD is a much more interesting case to me.  Modulo 
some important details, I can't see any reason *not* to have such a 
TLD, and, if we ever get off the dime here, I would like to work on 
it.

The relevance of this for gTLD policy is that gTLDs really can't be 
added willy nilly -- some kind of overall control of the name space 
is required.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain