[wg-c] Developing negotiating points

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>]

Marilyn,

At 10:26 AM 9/11/99 , Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>Milton, I appreciate the personalized posting. :-)

Isn't it fascinating how difficult it is to avoid indulging in that tendency?

>So, we continue to support the trial of one new gTLD, with an evaluation

In a complex problem space, such as the current one, it is at least as 
important to hear the reasons, as it is to hear the positions.  In other 
words, it would be extremely helpful to hear the specific concerns and 
logic which you feel dictates the position you are taking.

Detail is particularly helpful.  For example we know that you have long had 
a basic concern about protecting a famous trademark; that's fine.  But how 
does that concern lead to concluding one, rather than 3 or 10 or 300 new 
gTLDs?  My understanding is that the primary concern is policing against 
infringement/dilution activities; it should be noted that policing is 
currently impaired by the policies of the current, sole gTLD registry, and 
that tools for assisting in that on-going "research" requirement can (and 
have) been developed, such as by CORE.

In the interest of efficiency let me try to prime the pump, a bit, by 
pointing out some difficulties with a number as low as one, in spite of the 
trademark policing concerns which push for the lowest possible number.

I'll concede that, given the strength of that concern from many members of 
the trademark community, "one" does represent progress; it is common to 
hear insistence on "none".  Still the question is whether "one" permits 
achieving useful goals and/or creates additional, serious problems.

To make sure there is basic agreement about the reasons for making any 
changes at all -- Additional gTLDs are desired to:

         a) increase competition in the hope that the competition will 
improving service and reduce prices; and

         b) increase name choice for registrants, in the hope that 
registrants can more easily find and register names that are "natural" to 
their purpose.


1.  Registry

One name means, at most, one new registry.  Does that permit a reasonable 
basis for evaluating additional competition?  Probably not.  A typical 
number for such experimental phases is 3.  (Whether this number includes 
the current gTLD registry is a reasonable question.  My own opinion is that 
it should not, since part of the evaluation needs to be about registry 
start-up effort and looking at only two examples limits the analysis too much.)

It is also worth noting that the sole, current gTLD registry happens to 
control 3 gTLDs, so that blocks of 3 would do a better job of permitting 
comparative parity.


2.  Names

Does only one additional name permit evaluation of improvement in 
registrant name choice efficacy?  Doesn't seem likely.

Again a multiple of three fits this sort of experimental approach much better.

The combination of these factors suggests 2-3 new registries, each 
administering 3 new gTLDs.


>period before any further movement takes place. We remain unconvinced at
>this time that it would be responsible to do other than than. We also firmly
>believe that it is important to support the continuing valuable role of the
>ccTLDs and would like to see .us become as viable and well used as many
>other ccTLDs.

A negotiation is also helped by maintaining focus.  Since the topic is 
gTLDs, what inter-dependency requires discussing ccTLDs?

d/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker                                         Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting                               Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive                             <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA                 <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>