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

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

Given the fact that we are in a "test bed" stage, that could lead to the
creation of far larger numbers of TLDs, it would seem appropriate to
choose the examples to illustrate the types of TLDs that might be
interesting to have.

The Non-Commercial domain holders asked that half of the test bed TLDs
be used for non-commercial TLDs.   It was also the sense of the
non-commercial domain holders that they wanted the non-commercial
domains to "mean something."  Success would not necessarily be measured
in terms of the numbers of domains issued.  

For example, the .int, .gov and .edu domains are more interesting to
users precisely because they are restricted and limited in use.  Some
registrars want to see domains that "sell" in large nubmers, because
that is how they make money.  There is interest in the non-commercial
domain constituency to create TLDs that achieve social objectives, or
that provide helpful signalling.

I think WG-C should address both, and I think the views of the
non-commerical constituencies should be important in evaluating the
proposals for non-commercial TLDs.  

     Jamie

On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 03:35:40PM -0800, Rick H Wesson wrote:
> > kent,
> > 
> > the context is "6 to 10 additional gTLDs" ie the testbed of new
> > registries.
> 
> Doesn't matter.
> 
> > your suggestions assume that the registrant population could be
> > controlled requiring some gTLDs to restrict whom might register under it.
> 
> Nope.  "Control" is not a necessary factor.  Chartered or not, enforced 
> or not, controlled or not, .museum isn't going to have as many 
> registrations as .shop, .info, .web, or even .nom.
> 
> > Why should we pick some names with a potentially small pool of potential
> > registrants.
> 
> Precisely because it's a testbed.  If we screw up we have a smaller mess
> to clean up.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > 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.  
> 
> Yes.  Precisely.  
> 
> -- 
> Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> 

<AGE
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology    
P.O. Box 19367        | http://www.cptech.org 
Washington, DC 20036  | love@cptech.org       
Voice 202/387-8030    | Fax 202/234-5176