Re: [wg-c] new TLDs

[Jeff Shrewsbury Info Avenue <iamarketing@InfoAve.Net>]

For the record, I concur with the sentiment that ICANN should play no part
in deciding who qualifies for a TLD. When deciding what the new TLDs might
be, we should think as generically as possible and let the consumer decide
which ones he or she wants to register with.

as much as I can agree that down the road industry-specific TLDs such as
.airlines or .cpa or .bank or whatever, might be a good thing to add, for
right now I believe we should not burden ICANN with any kind of oversight
for granting registration in any TLD.

also just for the record, here are my thoughts on 6 potential testbed TLDs:

.web
.biz
.ISP
.firm
.info
.inc

Just thoughts. 

Thanks and happy holidays to all.

Jeff Shrewsbury
Info Avenue


At 10:41 AM 12/22/99 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Mr. Campbell:
>
>Your proposal for a .BANK tld is an interesting idea, and one
>example of literally hundreds of possible applications of new
>tlds.
>
>You ask "whether a managed or restricted gTLD is something ICANN
>can consider in its definitions of gTLDs or not." I cannot speak
>for ICANN, but my answer is Yes. There are many people in this
>working group who have always viewed the "g" in gTLD as a not
>very meaningful qualification. Fundamentally, this Working Group
>is about adding new TLDs to the root of the domain name space.
>The new TLDs should respond to market and administrative needs,
>not to some preconceived notions about what is "generic" and what
>isn't. The "g" in gTLD is just a way of distinguishing name
>extensions from country code TLDs based on the ISO-3166 standard.
>There is no precise or universally accepted definition of what
>makes a TLD "generic" and there is nothing in our WG charter that
>binds us to a particular definition.
>
>In general, "managed or restricted TLDs" pose fewer trademark
>problems than open TLDs, and therefore are much less
>controversial. However, there are people who want to severely
>restrict the number of TLDs that ICANN can create. Proposals such
>as yours for limited-purpose TLDs will be the losers if they have
>their way, because in a regime of artificial scarcity (e.g., the
>current proposal for only 6-10 new TLDs) there will not be enough
>room for many viable proposals.
>
>The most important issue raised by your proposal is who decides
>what is a "bank" and what criteria are used. That is, when you
>speak of "membership based on an assigned and verified
>certification," who does the assigning and verifying? In my
>opinion (and again I do not speak for the WG as a whole, there is
>no consensus on this although many others support this view)
>ICANN as a domain name delegator should have absolutely nothing
>to do with defining or approving the criteria.
>
>Some people in the WG believe that if a new tld such as .BANK is
>created, ICANN should define the name extension, and pick the
>most appropriate agency to run it. In effect, ICANN becomes a
>quasi-regulatory licensing agency with the authority to decide
>who "deserves" to decide what is a bank. As ICANN has learned
>with country code delegations, however, conferring official
>status upon domain name registries embroils it in political
>controversy. That is why others, including myself, take a more
>free market approach to name delegations. We believe that ICANN
>should simply accept, review, and coordinate applications to run
>TLDs from registries, and make sure that their proposals are
>technically sound. The management criteria and business models
>for registrations should be up to the registry itself. In effect,
>a managed TLD is simply a variant of a proprietary TLD, where the
>registry operator determines the criteria for registration.
>
>As a pure hypothetical, ICANN might give your agency .BANK simply
>because you submitted a technically sound application and there
>are no conflicting applications, but the delegation would not
>mean that ICANN endorses .BANK as the "official" place for banks
>to register. Whatever official status the TLD got would have to
>be earned by the registry, based on its reputation among
>consumers, the cooperation of the international banking
>community, and so on.
>
>I would encourage you to submit comments to ICANN expressing your
>support for new TLDs. Comments can be submitted at
>
>comments-gtlds@dnso.org
>
>
>
>