Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting

["Keith Gymer" <keith.gymer@btinternet.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Simon <cls@flywheel.com> wrote
> 1. The Self-Selection as Justification
>
> During the course of discussion about how many and which new gTLDs should
> ultimately be added, I again stated my preference for many, on the
principle
> that allowing people wide latitude in self-selection of a domain name is
more
> desirable than slotting DN holders into a pre-ordained classification. We
can't
> know beforehand how people will invest meanings or status in gTLDs, and
the DNS
> is sufficiently scalable (from a technical standpoint) that it's not
necessary
> to tell them how they should do so.
>
<Big snip>
>
> I believe the choice provided by "the more feasibly fixed fiasco"
principle can
> expedite progress, given the paralyzing lack of consensus we have seen on
the
> issue of which registry model to adopt.


One of the major problems which is being conveniently ignored, I think, by
the proponents of adding [many] more gTLDs, is that once a gTLD is gone
there's nothing else left but the "."

If there is a free for all land-grab for new gTLDs (which is what I believe
would follow from Chris' proposal) then any subsequent chance to build an
alternative, coherent and logical (g)TLDstructure would effectively be lost,
because you'ld have to build around the gTLDs which were already out there .

Personally, I remain unconvinced that there is any real need for many more
gTLDs rather than just the loud clamour of a number of 'entrepreneurs' who
see an opportunity to get a share of NSI's alleged pot of gold regardless of
whether more gTLDs are actually the best solution for the rest of the
internet stakeholders.  If these "entrepreneurs" want to try out their ideas
for new domains, it there would be less risk of damage to the internet as a
whole if they were given the chance to start  with their new TLDs as SLDs
under .us.   If they can't make a market in the US on that basis, then there
is no need to waste a gTLD on them.  If they screw up .us, we still have the
chance to rescue the country by allocating .usa and starting again ;-)

However, once .usa is grabbed by one of these guys, it will be gone and
that's that.

[Actually, maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing ........ <non US person
having a joke>]

Seriously, though, I think the fact that there is indeed nothing but the .
left once a gTLD has been taken, mitigates very strongly against anything
other than starting with a very FEW new gTLDs and looking very carefully at
their impact before giving up any more.  I think that is actually also more
consistent with what Chris has nicely called "the more feasibly fixed
fiasco" principle.

Keith