[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[wg-c] With apologies, Bill Semich's Position on New gTLDs
- To: wg-c@dnso.org
- Subject: [wg-c] With apologies, Bill Semich's Position on New gTLDs
- From: bill@mail.nic.nu (J. William Semich)
- Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 00:08:30 -0400
- Cc: Esther Dyson <edyson@edventure.com>, Greg Crew <gregcrew@iaccess.com.au>, Mike Roberts <roberts@icann.org>, George Conrades <gconrades@icann.org>, Frank Fitzsimmons <fitzsimmon@dnb.com>, Hans Kraaijenbrink <H.Kraaijenbrink@kpn-telecom.nl>, Jun Marai <junsec@wide.ad.jp>, Geraldine Capdeboscq <geraldine.capdeboscq@bull.fr>, Eugenio Triana <etrigar@teleline.es>, Linda Wilson <linda_wilson@radcliffe.edu>
- In-Reply-To: <37D6F941.4A4A8FEA@syr.edu>
- References: <6751E347E374D211857100A0C92563DC6376A9@MAILDC>
- Sender: owner-wg-c@dnso.org
Hello;
I apologize for cross-posting this comment to the board of ICANN in
addition to the Working Group C list, but because Milton Mueller has
singled me out by name and completely misrepresented my position with
respect to the creation of new gTLDs, I believe it is important to set the
record straight. I hope this is the last cross-post to the ICANN Board on
this matter.
On September 9, at 08:03 PM -0400, Milton Mueller wrote to the ICANN Board:
> We have a commercially marketed ccTLD registry
>(Bill Semich) telling us that he does not support any new competition from
open
>gTLDs....
This is just not true, as Milton well knows. Below are my exact words on
the matter, as posted to the Working Group C list in response to a
consensus call for the blanket creation of 6-10 new gTLDs, and which
elicited Milton's response to you:
"Hello;
This question of "how many new gTLDs should we start with?" stands the main
issue on its head.
That main issue is not *how many* new gTLDs to introduce, but *how to*
introduce new gTLDs (which goes back to the question of "Why does the
public need new gTLDs?")
For example, I might be very likely support Tony's "16 per six months" if
these were defined as chartered or restricted TLDs. They would serve a
public service, helping users more logically locate the correct Web sites
they are interested in reaching (such as "acme.movers" vs
"acme.distributors" or whatever). Then gTLDs like .med, .shop, .nom, .per,
.ncom or .adult would make sense (if they have a charter to predefine what
"uses" registrants must fit the domain name into.)
But I would likely only support a preliminary test of just *one* new gTLD
for a year or more if, on the other hand, the plan is for these new gTLDs
to be totally open as are .com, .net and .org under current management at
NSI. 16 new gTLDs per month under such a setting is utter chaos for users
and businesses alike.
I expect others on this list and elsewhere may feel the same way.
So please don't count me in your consensus for adding 6-10 new gTLDs,
unless we all first agree under what terms or procedures such new gTLDs
will be created and operating.
Regards,
Bill Semich"
I hope that is clear enough to all.
Best wishes,
Bill Semich
.NU Domain