Re: [council] Conclusions of gTLDs committee 6 Feb 2003
Title: Re: [council] Conclusions of gTLDs committee 6 Feb 200
Phillip -- I have not entered into this discussion, but I must correct you on one point. There is nothing in the literature to suggest that I or the Board favor or disfavor a "taxonomic rationalization". That does not mean that anyone rejects such a notion, but it would be a mistake to precede from any basis of assuming that any of us have any preference. There are very powerful arguments in favor of no structure, amny of which were voiced in the Public Forum in Amsterdam.
The Board (including me or my successor) are very much interested in the views of the Names Council on this subject. Jordyn is quite correct in assuming that my report and comments were the driving force behind the wording in the resolution. On the other hand, there is no need for the Committee to take too constructionist a view. The Names Council is of course always free to express its opinion on any subject within its charter. The Board is seeking advice, not policy input at this stage.
At 5:20 PM +0100 2/13/03, Philip Sheppard wrote:
I believe that we are free to explore versions of structure (though do not recommend we do so in abstracto) and that the CEO and the Board lean toward, as you identify "a taxonomic rationalization".
A taxonomic rationalisation is an objective and a a pre-determined list is but one strategy to get there. On the call there was support for (your proposal?) to not have a pre-determined list due to the problems this would cause. An alternative strategy is to allow sponsors/registries to propose a series of differentiated gTLDs. If each new gTLD were differentiated to its predecessors, a market-driven taxonomy would develop over time. If the committee like that idea, it is then the task to define the criteria for differentiation.
President and CEO
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292