RE: [wg-c] Eureka?

[Jean-Michel Becar <Jean-Michel.Becar@etsi.fr>]

I think Roeland you made a good point here:

> I would restrict each registry to a single TLD, until they
> have met existance proofs of continued business operations 
> (one year of
> profitability, or non-negative cash-flow).

BUT we don't have to focus only on financial viability of the new registries
but also on the technical part for the sake of the stability.

Jean-Michel Bécar
becar@etsi.fr
http://www.etsi.org
E.T.S.I. Project Manager
Tel: +(33) (0)4 92 94 43 15
Fax: +(33) (0)4 92 38 52 15




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roeland M.J. Meyer [mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 18:06
> To: mueller@syr.edu; wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [wg-c] Eureka?
> 
> 
> I once listened to my partner and CTO, a Ph.D in CS, wrt 
> advertising. He
> was so concerned that we don't flood the servers with new 
> customer that
> he strongly held the view that we should only advertise 
> minimally, in a
> targeted fashion. Counter to my own better experience, we acted on his
> opinion. The response rate was, predictably, zero. The lesson learned,
> Engineering staff have no clue and optimistically 
> over-estimate, market
> responses. That is not the first, or only, time I have run that
> particular experiment.
> 
> I submit, if we open up the root to thousands of TLDs, with no
> restrictions whatsoever, that we will be lucky to even get ONE
> additional TLD registry out of it, not counting CORE. I submit that
> additional TLDs, from NSI, is not what we want. What we want 
> is new TLD
> registries, in competition with NSI. I would dearly love to 
> see at least
> three new TLD registries, as well as a root registry to manage them.
> Initially, I would restrict each registry to a single TLD, until they
> have met existance proofs of continued business operations 
> (one year of
> profitability, or non-negative cash-flow).
> 
> This argument, wrt new gTLDs, is somewhat of a red-herring. The direct
> issue is new registries. Only then, do we address the 
> quantity of gTLDs.
> 
> --------------------
> Roeland M.J. Meyer, CEO
> Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
> http://www.mhsc.com/
> mailto://rmeyer@mhsc.com
> --------------------
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> > Milton Mueller
> > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 8:21 AM
> > To: wg-c@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: [wg-c] Eureka?
> >
> >
> > Kent:
> > Here's a scenario. Tell me if it addresses your concerns.
> >
> > On 1 Jan 2000, ICANN issues its long-awaited new gTLD
> > decision. The rulemaking
> > contains the following items:
> >
> > 1) ICANN announces that it will accept applications to run
> > TLDs from up to 10 new
> > qualified registries. It announces that 5 of them will be
> > shared and 5 will be
> > exclusive. It issues an RFP with basic, minimal guidelines
> > for each model. The
> > guidelines include whatever TM protection criteria the DNSO
> > can agree upon.
> > Applications can be submitted any time after 1 March, 2000.
> >
> > 2) ICANN announces that it is prepared to add up to 300 new
> > TLDs to the root over the
> > next 3 years, based on applications from registries. In cases
> > of conflicting
> > applications for the same name ICANN will decide who, if
> > anyone, gets it. In the first
> > year, each shared registry will be allowed to run 3 gTLDs and
> > each exclusive will be
> > allowed to run 1 gTLD. The next year, 10 new registry
> > proposals will be entertained,
> > and existing registries will be allowed to submit proposals
> > to add TLDs to their
> > repertoire. The maximum new gTLDs in the second year will be
> > 100. A third iteration
> > planned for the third year could take the number up to 300.
> >
> > 3) ICANN's decision contains an escape clause that allows it
> > to put the brakes on the
> > expansion of the name space, but only if certain clearly
> > defined criteria are met. In
> > other words, the presumption is that the expansion will go
> > forward unless serious
> > problems are *proven* to arise.
> >
> > Assume the "worst" from a TM/IP point of view: in the first
> > year, there are actually
> > 10 viable proposals for registries, which means that a
> > maximum of 20 new gTLDs would
> > be *authorized* in the first year. Authorization is not the
> > same thing as operation.
> > If they get the go-ahead from ICANN in April, the registries
> > will come on line in
> > staggered intervals from May to October. Even by April, the
> > Internet should have
> > several months of experience with whatever form of DRP it 
> has adopted.
> >
> > The advantage of a broad authorization of a significant
> > number of new TLDs is that it
> > creates a competitive marketplace and makes ample room for
> > all of the various parties,
> > both new and old, who want to get in to the market, with less
> > arbitrary
> > discrimination. These are vital consumer and supplier
> > benefits. They are are equal in
> > status to the claims of trademark owners. But if in fact
> > serious TM problems occur,
> > ICANN could cut short the experiment and amend its plan.
> >
> > It is also quite possible under this scenario that ICANN does
> > *not* receive qualified
> > applications from 10 new registries, or that applications
> > trickle in rather slowly.
> > Several people have raised serious questions about whether
> > the business case exists
> > for more than three or four new registries. There is
> > uncertainty about this. In my
> > opinion, ICANN owes it to the markeplace to err on the large
> > side. That is, it is
> > better to be prepared to authorize 10 and then learn that
> > only 5 are ready, than it is
> > to arbitrarily cut off 5 or 6 viable businesses.
> >
> >
> > Kent Crispin wrote:
> >
> > > That sounds to me like advocacy of a "lots of TLDs in a
> > short to medium
> > > term" approach.  That is the position that is being 
> argued against;
> > > the phrase "100 immediately" is just a tag phrase labeling the
> > > position you advocate.  It is not a strawman.
> > >
> > > More disturbing, however, is your implicit assumption that
> > nothing can
> > > go wrong, and that we really should press on regardless of
> > what we may
> > > find from our first experience.  The subtext of your
> > position is "add
> > > TLDs and damn the consequences".
> >
> > --
> > m i l t o n   m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
> > syracuse university          http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/
> >
> >
>