Re: [wg-c] With apologies, Bill Semich's Position on New gTLDs

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

[cc list trimmed]
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 12:08:30AM -0400, J. William Semich wrote:
[...]
> 
> 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.)

[...]
> 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. 

Personally, I also favor chartered TLDs.  The argument for more
"open" gTLDs  is that they will provide more competition (for 
NSI), and I think that a set of half a dozen new open gTLDs might 
do that.  But it seems to me that if you add many more than that 
they won't compete with NSI, they will compete with each other for 
a tiny market share.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain