On 2 August 1999, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> wrote:
>
>Tossing in 100 new gTLDs is hardly "bending over backward" to
>accomodate the concerns of TM interests.
What if those 100 gTLDs (and here I'm using "100" as an ad-hoc
upper bound, and not as an actual proposal for the number of new gTLDs)
are introduced under conditions that do address the concerns of TM
interests? Your own cTLD proposal, for example? Will their introduction
still be dismissed out-of-hand simply because it seems "too many"?
>
>TM interests have already moved from their position.
>
I'm sorry, I must've missed the original position. you mean they
were being more stringent than "no new gTLDs at all"?
>Not at all. What is being proposed is the simply prudent course of
>entering unknown territory slowly. I don't oppose adding 100 new
>gTLDs because of TM interests -- I oppose it because it is crazy
>from an operational point of view ("operational" in the broader
>business sense, not the narrow technical sense, as I explained in my
>note to Milton.)
>
>That's why ICANN proposed 5 testbed registrars, instead of simply
>throwing the doors open -- it's the intelligent, prudent thing to do.
I still don't see why this is a problem. If I understand correctly,
it's the registry -- not the registrar -- that presents the biggest
operational problem. If 100 new gTLDs were introduced, and the
registrars don't sell them right away, big deal. At least they've
been okay'd.
I would rather that the introduction of a large number of gTLDs be
approved in writing and then delayed because the registry/registrar models
can't currently handle the load. This would in my opinion be better
than approving a handful because of hypothetical fears.
>> 1) There is no need for a working group on this, because regardless
>> of any proposals made, the TM/IP interests will always have their way.
>
>There are many other details besides how many TLDs are added day one.
Yes, but "how many TLDs are added day one" is one of the questions this
WG is supposed to address. Are you saying that we should not address it
because of the TM interests?
>
>> 2) There exists a group that has complete control over domain name
>> policy to the exclusion of all other groups.
>
>TM interests don't have "complete control". But there is no doubt
>that they are influential.
If their influence is that widespread, then there's an inherent flaw
in the system. No one group should have that much control over the
namespace.
>
>> Working from that position would indicate that any effort on this
>> is a waste of time, because every time someone makes a suggestion,
>> one can come back with, "Sorry, nope. They won't allow it, don't
>> go there."
>
>TM interests have a clear and important concern about the sudden
>addition of a large number of gTLDs, and they deserve to be
>addressed.
I'm not arguing that we should ignore them. I'm just exasperated
that some here are addressing them to the exclusion of every other
point of view.
>Adding 100 new gTLDs at once is simply an affront to that
>concern, and ignores it. Adding a few new gTLDs and observing the
>results is the reasonable approach; saying "Damn their eyes!" and
>adding 100 new gTLDs immediately is *not* a reasonable approach -- it
>is an absolutist, ideological, no-compromise position that ignores TM
>concerns.
the addition of a few TLDs at a time has already been done, and observed.
Isn't this now the second or third iteration of this process? How
many more times to we want to dance with the TM interests around this
topic?
>
>> I'll keep arguing for expansion, because I don't believe the above is
>> true. I think that there are TM/IP interests sitting quietly in the
>> background who are willing to listen to proposals, and who are willing
>> to be flexible.
>
>The question is not expansion, the question is timetable and
>strategy. Every new system needs some testing; the ADRs need
>testing; ICANN regulatory mechanisms need testing.
In that case, they should be in place and operational before
we even consider this question, then. To try to introduce all of these
at once would not make good sense.
>
>Humor us. Pretend the process works, and let's add a few gTLDs and
>see how it goes, and then we can visit more gTLDs. "Implement, test,
>refine" -- it's the Internet Way.
See my comment immediately above.
>
>Forget the looming specter of the TM group. Think "Responsible
>development of new systems".
>
Again, see my comment above. If the concern is now the stability of
the system as a whole (whereas last week I thought it was the cost
of policing the namespace...boy, is this a slippery topic to nail
down? I've seen fewer moving targets in shooting galleries) then
we shouldn't even be having this discussion yet.
As a matter of fact, all work should cease until the transfer of
the roots is complete, and ICANN is firmly established. THEN the
rollout of the ADR should occur. THEN the processes for expanding
the number of registries should occur. THEN the registrar expansion.
And then, finally, the expansion of the namespace. THAT is the
responsible development of new systems.
If you are actually arguing that the scaling of one factor to be
changed in a complex system will make a difference in stability when
you're already tweaking several other major factors, I'd really like
to know what you consider "responsible development of new systems".
I haven't even seen any contingency plans or back-out paths.
--
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