DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

This is a valuable thread and worthy of further consideration, if not
action. There needs to be a role for the prospective TLDs in the policy
process for future TLDs, evaluation of the testbed, and the reform of the
new TLD application process. They've certainly shown they are serious about
the ICANN process -- the $50,000 fee was more than a token.

By not balancing the formal representation on the NC, there's a real
incentive for the current gTLD registries to use their votes to slow, if not
block, the addition of any new TLDs beyond the seven currently approved.

We at least need to be cognizant of the anti-competitive potential in
allowing existing market participants to have 3 votes on whether additional
competitors can have access to the registration market.

    -- Bret

Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> Anyway, the point you raise is about the other applicants, that may be waiting
> for quite some time (at least one year, I think) for ICANN to approve new
> TLDs. In the old times of creation of DNSO, this problem had been adressed,
> but not solved. There were proposals for either create a "to-be-TLD"
> Constituency, or include them in the Registry constituency. The objection was:
> "How to define a to-be-TLD?" Everybody could lay down such a claim. Of course,
> now with the process in place, application to ICANN could be a criterion.

This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>