Re: [wg-c] Well, maybe this won't work

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

> > 	I had hoped that enough people in the center could rally round a centrist,
> > compromise  position, that it wouldn't matter that there were holdouts on
> > either side. In the face of this opposition, though, eight people humming
> > in favor just won't do it.  Unless we get a strong surge of support for the
> > proposal now, I'll conclude that it's not going anywhere.  I'm fresh out of
> > ideas for forging consensus — anybody else have any?
> 
> As I've suggested before, if the pressure for additional TLDs is not
> answered by this working group, new root systems and hence new TLDs will
> develop outside of ICANN's coverage.  Those new TLDs, registries, and
> registrars will have to adhere neither to WIPO policies nor to ICANN's
> contracts.

A minority will always be able to do things in a non-standard way and by not
following the herd. People out there ARE using lynx. People ARE using BeOS,
People DO have Amigas, and some people actually wear their computers. This
is not a bad thing.
I do not agree with your analysis about new root systems and TLDs
*DEVELOPING* outside of the legacy coverage. There is movement outside the
legacy roots, but it is not something that seems anywhere near achieving
critical mass. Maybe because of lack of interest, maybe because of sheer
apathy. There are quite a few (in numerical terms) alternative root server
confederations out there. There's quite a large bunch of people who have
their own TLDs.

> It is very much in the interest of those who want a uniform regulatory
> system over TLDs, registrars, and registries to realize that the blockage
> of new TLDs, a blockage that is now many years of age, is going to induce
> the matter to be resolved by other means.

Actually, if *any* alternative RSC started to grow significantly, that would
really be the real push that would indicate how desperate everyone is for
these new TLDs. Me personally, I think that more TLDs is a great thing. I
also think that most people don't give two hoots. Not enough at least to
bother with shopping around to see who has more resolvable TLDs anyway.

> For me the matter of new TLDs is historical, I'm already happily using
> .web and other new TLDs.

If adding new TLDs were such a simple matter, you'd have quite a few
different entities jumping on ".web" and declaring open their registrations
in it. THEN you'd notice the problem. In the meantime, there is no
conflict, basically because most (all?) of those adding new TLDs are just
shoving to see if they can manage to make it in the
Own-A-TLD-And-Get-Rich-Quick game. It is to an extent a bit like the famous
get-rich-quick pyramid schemes which we all get in our email from time to
time. If all those wanting to get rich play along, then they might get some
movement. All you need is a few out of line and the cards topple. Human
nature being what it is, there is ALWAYS someone out of line, which is why
these schemes always topple...

> So, it is not a question of whether any TLDs at all, or if some, how many.
> Rather the question is whether those new TLDs will be under the ICANN
> umbrella or not.

Wrong. It *IS* a question of how many (if any) new TLDs, and it IS under the
ICANN umbrella that we're discussing. Out there there are already other
umbrellas playing the TLD game in their own particular way. If it was so
straight forward and so simple, you'd expect that by now, SOME of these
alternative RSCs would have managed to make a dent in the % of users that
resolve through them don't you think? It's that small detail that all those
wannabee TLD-grabbing folks seem to ignore...

Yours, John Broomfield.