Re: [wg-c] Dot Com monopoly and new TLDs

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.net>]

At 09:26 AM 4/20/00 -0400, James Love wrote:

I'm an old hand, which loses me more points everyday, apparently.

The bottom line is that there is no published market research, no published 
impact study, no publication of any kind that you can be pointed to.

Of course, I'll point you to Dave's imagination and Eric's fond memories. 
But, unfortunately, it still doesn't answer your question.

>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?"

A lot to their investors. Maybe an increase in dividend yield?

>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
>=======================================================