Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> do folks think the registrar constituency would support the creation of
> gTLDs that they can not participate in?

One should not expect support for mandatory diversity from those who have
an opportunity to double dip into multiple TLD spaces.

Those who are already mining the mountain of rich TLD ore created by years
of government sponsored monopololy ought to continue to work the ground
that they have staked out.

But the new TLD territories ought to be opened only to newcomers.

It is a matter of fundamental fairness.

In addition, simply in order to survive against the inertia of the
existing TLDs, the newcomers will have to have imagination and creativity
far beyond that of the those involved with the legacy TLDs.

And we want that imagination and creativity.


> Since current ICANN registrars have had to make significant investment
> just to participate they might take excception to not being allowed the
> same oppertunity they have in current gTLDs.

That same argument, of course, would justify NSI, having made the biggest
investment of all, retaining everything and having the first chance at any
new TLDs.

I don't accept that existing investment should be a consideration.  
If so, then perhaps we ought to measure existing investments and give
those who have spent more money a priority position in the queue for
access to the new TLDs.

If there were no limitation on the issuance of a great number of new TLDs
then fine, let existing participants double and triple dip.

But as long as there are going to be only a few new TLDs, then it behooves
us to encourage creative and imaginative newcomers.

No person or entity who has a role, whether registrar or registry, with an
already-existing TLD, ought to be permitted to have a role in any newly
created TLD.

		--karl--