Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on

["Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>]

My problem with "adding a few now" revolves around the issue
of those entities who do not get added.

If we presume that the registry chooses its TLD, then we have
a number of prospective registries who are not going to be able
to compete in the first wave.

If we presume that ICANN chooses the TLDs and then bids
the registries, we have a number of prospective registries who
are excluded because of a created scarcity.

Additionally, if ICANN chooses the TLDs, and any of them
are trademarks, that limits the registry that can run it to the
holder of that trademark. Presume that IOD's .web and
CORE's 5 trademarked TLDs are not eligible in this case,
if one presumes that ICANN would not choose a trademarked
TLD as a result.

If, as some have suggested, CORE gives its 5 trademarks to
ICANN, would CORE be willing to accept the possibility
that another applicant would get the bid on those TLDs?

What this boils down to, for me, is artificial scarcity.

If, on the other hand, we can agree that instead of a
limited number we have a limited time frame - say one
new TLD per month, we can then line up (by some fair
method) new registries and begin adding a TLD per
month. This gives plenty of time to recognize any
problems and stop them before they proliferate.

This also solves the problem of a trademarked TLD,
as, for example, CORE might find itself second in
line with one of its 5 trademarked TLDs, waiting
patiently for 30 days to be added.

As I've said before, presuming that the initial wave
of registries is a reasonably small number, Image
Online Design is perfectly willing to be last in line
with its .web registry in this plan.

--
Christopher Ambler
Personal Opinion Only, of course
This address belongs to a resident of the State of Washington
who does not wish to receive any unsolicited commercial email