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

[Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

kent,

the context is "6 to 10 additional gTLDs" ie the testbed of new
registries.

your suggestions assume that the registrant population could be
controlled requiring some gTLDs to restrict whom might register under it.

Why should we pick some names with a potentially small pool of potential
registrants. Since SLD names are currently scarce the market factors of
opening what may now appear like a small pool of registrants are not; add
the potential for cybersquating and wholesale name purchasing and what
we now might consider "small" may turn out to be potentially as large as
com/net/org.  

we should consider that whatever the initial list of new gTLDs are that
they have a potentially large registrant base so we have a good "test" of
all the technical and administrative features of whatever comes to play in
the newdom area.

for instance, if the testbed doesn't work and we cant create additional
gTLDs until we clean up our mess, then we have potentially created 6 to 10
new problems that could be as large as the NSI problem has been.  

I propose that we focus on the adding 6 to 10 additional GENERIC TLDs like
our wg paper proposes we have consessus on. after we review how well it
worked or didn't work; then we may determine how to move forward to the
size of allocations you like to think of.

regards,

-rick (we are not creating a directory service!)