[wg-c] hidden agenda

["Siegfried Langenbach" <svl@nrw.net>]

On 7 Sep 99, at 0:33, Karl Auerbach wrote:

> 
> > > 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
> 
[...]
> I'm merely pointing out that if if this WG comes reaches a decision of "no
> new TLDs, either by explicit choice, or by inaction resulting from
> deadlock", that such a decision can readily trigger the accellerated
> expansion of new TLDs that are entirely beyond ICANN's ability to
> regulate.
> 
> Clearly, if I am protecting my portfolio of marks, I would be concerned
> about the possibility of a new set of TLDs that do not have to adhere to
> the WIPO procedures or the ICANN registration contracts.
> 

As I cant read all these mails anymore , a short view from an european:
obviously the argumenting of everyone is driven by his presettled position:
the different groups are (please define missing :-))

 - avoid new tlds, because they effect my "portfolio of marks"
 - new tld , so I can try to make a fortune for myself
 - new tld , but try to avoid somebody of group 2 have success

unfortunately these is a "nono" i.e. few will admit belonging to one of those. 
OTOH we should consider that as a reality, thus recognizing and understanding 
better the arguments. I guess it would be helpful not to work "hidden" . It is 
not a shame to belong to one of the above. BTW I concider myself belonging to 
3.

siegfried