Re: [wg-c] Separating the Sheep from the Goats

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

> Beautiful. Who can object? The first two are the safest TLDs
> a TM owner could imagine and we agree that three new registries
> should be authorized. Can you clarify what you mean by a "non-
> commercial" domain name?

Who can object? Any other prospective registry who wants to be
in the first wave. We agree that three new registries should be
authorized? When did this happen?

> I like the 9 registries, and I like the registry selection of the name.
> Do the 9 have to be different from the first 3, or can any of the
> first 3 propose to add gTLDs?

I like 22. I also like the registry selection of the name. I think that the
22 should be different from the first ones.

For that matter, I think any entity chosen as an initial REGISTRAR
should be exempt from selection as an initial registry for the
same reasons.

> If we are talking about six months, and the ICANN plan to
> continue adding registries and TLDs (absent problems) is made clear,
> I am not very concerned about monopoly profits. New registrants can
> wait six months, or they can register under a shared-registry com, net or
> org, which should have competitive prices.

I also agree with this. As I had previously said, I don't think waiting an
extra amount of time is an issue to a registry as long as they know that
they're in line.

> > (2) The TLD must not be one which is the same as or confusingly similar
to any
> > famous trademark, unless the holder of the trademark assents irrevocably
to
> > the delegation of the TLD.
>
> Of course. This would be illegal regardless of what ICANN does.

Or unless the holder of the trademark *is* the registry.

> I don't understand the above. It seems that resolution of the conflictover
.web would occur in the course of application or, as I suspect,
> be worked out among the competing applicants.

Indeed, I suspect it would be resolved much sooner than that, even.

> > (4) All domains delegated prior to the full competition phase are
subject to
> > reallocation and re-award on the basis prevailing during the full
competition
> > phase.
>
> Sounds good

Really? So if Iperdome got .per in the first round, as you said, they'd
have to face having it re-awarded within a year or so? Hardly fair.

> > If the registry is operated on a for-profit basis, then the domain will
be re-awarded periodically on the basis of a
> > bidding process.  What the period should be, we can work on (I'm
thinking
> > annual).
>
> I think annual is a bit short

I'm thinking that no company in their right mind would invest the money into
creation, staffing and advertising if they knew that it would be taken away
by
another company in a short period of time. Even the small risk of losing on
a
re-compete to a company willing to take a loss (to put the competition out
of business) would prohibit this. Imagine the company with infrastructure
and
30 employees suddenly out of business, literally overnight.

This whole re-compete issue is a non-starter.

Now, re-compete in the case of insolvency or failure to abide by contract
is a whole different issue that I can agree with.

> I think ICANN needs to stay far, far away fromtrying to be an economic
regulator.

Agreed.

Christopher