Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

Now THAT is something we can agree on!

Philip Sheppard wrote:

> we envisage a system whereby the applicant registry proposes a gTLD and
> explains what they envisage for that gTLD. The registry describes the market
> they seek to attract. They describe the value added they are proposing for
> the DNS. Such description should be concise and unburdensome for the
> registry.

This is the most fair and sensible way to proceed. It is fair because anyone can
apply and all proposals have equal standing -- unlike dredging up the old
CORE/IAHC proposals. But the proposed method does not prevent CORE and its
backers from proposing to run ONE of the new TLDs. It is sensible because it is
registry-driven, and therefore taps into the creativity of the businesses and
organizations out there that are surely brimming with interesting ideas to
propose -- as opposed to letting a central committee decide what the world
wants. It ought to make the TM people happy because, at least for the first
6-10, ICANN will have the discretion to avoid selecting new TLDs that are most
problematical from that standpoint. But a registry-application process is one
that sets a good precedent for moving forward, a precedent that does not disturb
those of us who might differ with the TM lobby on how new TLDs might evolve in
the future. It is an extensible solution.

--MM