Re: [wg-c] Schwimmer Post From Last Week

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

> Why are we selecting the TLDs in the first place? What if there is no
> company that wants to run .anon? What if they'd rather run the
> full .anonymous?

If we chose a TLD that NO company wanted to run, then it would be obvious
that we had all colectively made a mistake as to what we thought would be a
"useful" TLD. If the general feeling is that ".anonymous" would be better
than ".anon", then ICANN would be better off launching a competitive bid for
the backend operations of ".anonymous" instead of ".anon". Just because
*ONE* campany says "hey, I want '.whatever', and I want it now", doesn't
seem to me the right reason to just go ahead and give it to them...

> Let the registries select their own TLD based on their ability to market,
> run, and serve their customers.

No, let us *all* decide on what would be good TLDs for the community (as
opposed to individual companies deciding what would be good for their bottom
lines), and then make competitive tenders to get companies to run them
cheaply, and thus serve those customers that you seem to want to be able to
find good, reliable and cheeap service for.

> We're here to make technical
> decisions (and some would argue operational decisions). Not, by
> a long shot, close to business decisions.

Ok, then who gets to veto those choices of TLD? What happens when you have
10 in line all off them saying "I want '.web'!"? I'm sure you will give us
some creative response which translates to "oh, but of course IOD gets to
keep '.web'."

> By the way, I'm sure that the next offering from McDonald's should
> be the "McGroovy." Let's mandate that, too.

ICANN controls what goes in the ICANN roots. If the McDonalds BoD decides on
a McGroovy, then there will be one. Just as *you* cannot force your way into
getting McDonalds to cook a McGroovy, *you* can't force your way into
getting IOD ram *their* ".web" down the ICANN roots. Fortunately. 

Yours, John Broomfield.