Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 12:10:39PM -0700, Bret Fausett wrote:
> 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.

But 1) while plausible, the notion that the gTLD constituency would be
united on this front is only a simplistic cartoon, and there are many
scenarios where it simply doesn't hold (*); 2) it's only 3 votes out of
21. 

> 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.

Sure, be cognizant.  We need to be cognizant of lots of things.

(*) You are overlooking, for example, the fact that a tld and a registry
are not the same thing.  New TLDs offer opportunities for *old*
registries.  And even if the new TLD comes with a new registry, new
registries can be acquired, after the new registry spends its capital 
in an initial marketing push.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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