Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven

["Mark C. Langston" <mark@bitshift.org>]

PROPOSAL:

  I propose that we allow no pre-sold TLDs to become part of the
testbed, and I further propose that we re-evaluate this position once
the testbed period has ended.








On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 10:13:25AM -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> I must ask - was NSI required to revoke all .com/.net/.org registrations
> when they signed on with ICANN?

No, but .com/.net/.org were already part of the roots.  the IAHC 7 are
not.  Thus, while .com/.net/.org may have only been sold by one
registrar prior to the introduction of the SRS, there was never any
doubt about their legitimacy or usefulness on a worldwide scale, to
the end-user.

The IAHC 7, on the other hand, were of dubious value, were not in the
roots, and were only reachable by those willing to configure their
systems to handle multiple independent roots.  They should not have
been pre-sold as though they were going to be added to the roots
any day now.  However, if I recall the ad copy, that's how CORE was
pushing them.

Going beyond legitimacy issues, there is the larger issue of fairness:
Why is there such a clamoring for new gTLDs?  Because there is a
perceived and/or actual shortage of short, memorable, pronouncable
names within the namespace of the existing, sanctioned roots.

Introducing new gTLDs where the namespace has been presold does not
solve this problem.  It simply introduces new gTLDs in which all the
"good names" have been taken before the public as a whole has a chance
to register anything in them.

I won't pretend to define what a "good name" is.  Everyone has their
own definition.  Some want short, memorable names.  Others want names
already taken in other TLDs.  Yet others define "good" as, "the name
I registered in a non-legitimate root years ago, and that I should
be allowed to keep if the TLD is added to the roots."

Anyone who registered such a name knew, or should have known, the
risk they were taking by giving money to a registrar selling SLDs under
TLDs not in the sanctioned roots.  There should have been -- indeed,
could not have been -- any guarantee that those registrations would
carry over if the TLD was ever added to the roots.

If people want to keep operating TLDs outside the authoritative roots,
fine.  if people want to sell SLDs within them, fine.  If people are
willing to give these people money for those SLDs, again fine.  But
don't presume that you're doing a public good by arguing to add a
presold gTLD to the root to alleviate the current shortage of names
within namespace.  It's painfully obvious when you're thinking with
your wallet.




-- 
Mark C. Langston
mark@bitshift.org
Systems & Network Admin
San Jose, CA