Re: Re[6]: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs

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

To rephrase Roeland's question, and to make it as blunt as possible
(because I've asked it myself and never seen an answer):

Why can't we say "There will be 100* new gTLDs, ..."

...and then either:

"Here's the timetable covering their rollout, with X many per day/month/
quarter/fizbin"

or:

"And they will be rolled out as the market determines it can bear them.
This may mean initially that only 2 or 3 are adopted by the registries,
or even that none are.  But by the end of year X, there will be 100*
new gTLDs in existence."

* NOTE:  Figure for argument's sake only insert any LARGENUM.


Nobody's ever explained what's wrong with this, if anything.  It 
allows for a large number of new gTLDs, it satisfies the TM fears that
introducing LARGENUM of new gTLDs at once will be catastrophic.

And, as an extra, added, lemon-scented bonus, we don't all have to do
this again every month/quarter/year/fizbin when there's a need/desire
for more new gTLDs, because the decision to adopt them has already been
implemented.  

-- 
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