RE: [wg-c] Eureka?

["Name.Space" <pg@name-space.com>]

Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:

>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.

Dear Roeland,

I don't understand how you come to this conclusion.

Name.Space is a new TLD registry, and has been successfully
operating multiple TLDs since 1996, and presently services over 500,
which we see ultimatey as shared, once the mechanisms are in place to
facilitate sharing proper.  Operationally, once the infrastructure is in place
to run "x" number of TLDs,  the possibility to run "n" number of TLDs
exists.  Name.Space is living proof.  (and it doesn't cost 2M per TLD!).
We are willing to support any additional new TLDs that come into
existance, over and above the present 500+ that we now service, and
don't perceive any additional real costs involved in servicing them,
including marketing, since it is not our desire to "brand" TLDs, so
marketing any specific TLD is irrelevant.  Marketing a diverse
domain registration service is all that is called for, inviting the
users to make the choice of what is appropriate for their needs
and use.  After all, it is all about the end users and the diversity
of choices available to them, in TLDs and in the companies that
they wish to do business with.

Such specificity possible with diverse and large numbers of TLDs remedies
the confusion that the IP/TM folks complain about due to the ambiguity
of names ending in ".com".  It is clear that "united.van" is not
"united.airlines"
or "united.fruit" and that "amazon.river" is clearly not "amazon.books".
With the legacy system, "united.com" leaves only confusion and one
"winner".  Under an expanded namespace, there is less confusion,
and more possibilities for entities to have addresses that are more
specific, permitting the use of the same word or string (i.e. united or
amazon) without causing conflicts under legitimate uses of such
words or strings.  (hijacking and cybersquatting are other valid
points, and personally I find such practices, including speculation,
offensive and undesirable,  but don't see them as reasons for
preventing the addition of TLDs).

You may agree with those points, as you seem to advocate "some" new
TLDs, but I am still baffled by your economic analysis since according to
your assumptions, Name.Space would have had to invest over
$1,054,000,000 to set up the 500+ TLDs that we presently service.
I can assure you, this is NOT the case.  With regards to profitability,
had our request to add the new TLDs to the root been granted in
1997, we would certainly be profitable at this point.

Paul Garrin
Founder/CEO
Name.Space, Inc.
pg@name-space.com