[wg-c] Dot Com monopoly and new TLDs

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

I'm not sure what the point of Mr. Brunner's somewhat cryptic message
(below) is, but I do confess to not being an old hand at the "DNS Wars."

With respect to the issue of .shop as NSI's suggested name for a new
unrestricted gTLD, I asked what market research NSI might have done to
have supported this particular string.  This was a serious question.  I
am aware the .shop has been around for a while, and indeed is popular
among some veterans of the "DNS Wars."  However, I am aware the "market
research" often involves more than listening to a bunch of sofware
engineers think about what makes sense.  My guess is that if a bunch of
*investors* won a bid to create the unrestricted gTLD of their choice,
.shop would not be the string of choice.  

NSI gets $6 per year as a registry for each domain registered in .com,
plus lots for registrar services.  I expect NSI to want to protect this
income stream as much as possible, but hey, that's just based upon my
assumptions about they way businesses (this business) operate(s).  Maybe
there is something that I have overlooked.  

If the NSI proposal for 2 new TLDs was truly intended as a "proof of
concept," and not a delaying tactic, it would be somewhat interesting,
but even then, not very impressive.  What would it "prove?"   

We already have ccTLDs marketing themselves as gTLDs -- lots of them. 
.cc, .fm, .am., .md, .tv, .tm, .to., .nu etc, are proof that groups
other than NSI can set up and run a registry service.   I assume people
have noticed this already.  

What would be interesting would be to see what ideas will come forth
once the door is open to new ideas.   A test bed of 10 would at least
provide for some biodiversity.  A testbed of 100 would be better.  Since
6 to 10 is out, how about a testbed of 100 new TLDs for each region? 
Does ICANN really want to be known as the gatekeeper and protector or
narrow corporate interests?  

  Jamie


Eric Brunner wrote:
> 
> While it is a fact that Mr. Love's participation in the "DNS Wars" is of
> very recent date, and  consequently, though not necessarily, has a view
> untroubled by some rather salient details, it is a surprise that both of
> Chris and Simon play dumb.
> 
> What "the rest of WG-C/DNSO would like to evaluate" is small beans, there
> being no basis for compromise on basics, and chuckleheads playing taunt
> and tag rather than the more difficult game of forward progress isn't an
> interesting alternative. I haven't forgotten the IHAC period of this long
> process, in fact I view it with vastly increassed fondness -- particularly
> the caliber of the work that when on then.
> 
> If Mr. Love and others new to the problem don't need to understand that
> there is prior work, fine. If people who know better lie about the issue
> I suppose that is par for the course as well.
> 
> Cheers,
> Eric

-- 
=======================================================
James Love, Director           | http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology | mailto:love@cptech.org 
P.O. Box 19367                 | voice: 1.202.387.8030
Washington, DC 20036           | fax:   1.202.234.5176
=======================================================