From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #106 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Saturday, November 18 2000 Volume 01 : Number 106 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 22:11:53 -0500 (EST) From: James Love Subject: Re: [wg-c] new TLDs Kudos really to Jonathan, and in its own way, ICANN seems to be doing the Working Group C report. Jamie On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > The ICANN Board just approved seven new TLDs: BIZ (JVTeam), INFO > (Afilias), NAME (Global Name Registry), PRO (RegistryPro), MUSEUM (MDMA), > AERO (SITA), and COOP (NCDA). Kudos to all who helped to bring this > about. > > Jon > > > > Jonathan Weinberg > weinberg@msen.com > - -- - -------------------------- James Love, Consumer Project on Technology, http://www.cptech.org love@cptech.org, v. 1.202.387.8030, f 1.202.234.5176 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 00:04:24 -0500 (EST) From: James Love Subject: Re: [wg-c] new TLDs I have recieved some private mail, asking if we were happy with the ICANN results, and the answer is no. Like many others, were were disappointed with many of the rejections and many of the comments from various board members. That said, I think that Jonathan and others who moved the process forward deserve thanks, and I hope this leads to a further expansion of the root. I thought it was interesting how close the numbers came to the 6 to 10 from the WG-C report. We'd like to see thousands added, and I imagine these will lead to a much greater number down the road. I hope so. I feel badly for those who paid the $50k and were rejected on very arbitrary grounds. Jamie On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, James Love wrote: > Kudos really to Jonathan, and in its own way, ICANN seems to be doing > the Working Group C report. Jamie > > > On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > > > The ICANN Board just approved seven new TLDs: BIZ (JVTeam), INFO > > (Afilias), NAME (Global Name Registry), PRO (RegistryPro), MUSEUM (MDMA), > > AERO (SITA), and COOP (NCDA). Kudos to all who helped to bring this > > about. > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > Jonathan Weinberg > > weinberg@msen.com > > > > - -- - -------------------------- James Love, Consumer Project on Technology, http://www.cptech.org love@cptech.org, v. 1.202.387.8030, f 1.202.234.5176 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 01:57:23 -0500 From: "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." Subject: Re: [wg-c] new TLDs Does anyone know whether ICANN provided (or intends to provide) a written reason to those applicants who were rejected? I am assuming the board took an up-or-down vote, but I am wondering whether board also intends to attempt to show the vote was not arbitrary by sending out a written response? Rod - ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Love" To: "Jonathan Weinberg" Cc: Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 12:04 AM Subject: Re: [wg-c] new TLDs > I have recieved some private mail, asking if we were happy with the > ICANN results, and the answer is no. Like many others, were were > disappointed with many of the rejections and many of the comments from > various board members. That said, I think that Jonathan and others who > moved the process forward deserve thanks, and I hope this leads to a > further expansion of the root. I thought it was interesting how close > the numbers came to the 6 to 10 from the WG-C report. We'd like to see > thousands added, and I imagine these will lead to a much greater number > down the road. I hope so. I feel badly for those who paid the $50k and > were rejected on very arbitrary grounds. > > Jamie > > > On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, James Love wrote: > > > Kudos really to Jonathan, and in its own way, ICANN seems to be doing > > the Working Group C report. Jamie > > > > > > On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > > > > > The ICANN Board just approved seven new TLDs: BIZ (JVTeam), INFO > > > (Afilias), NAME (Global Name Registry), PRO (RegistryPro), MUSEUM (MDMA), > > > AERO (SITA), and COOP (NCDA). Kudos to all who helped to bring this > > > about. > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > > > > > Jonathan Weinberg > > > weinberg@msen.com > > > > > > > > > -- > -------------------------- > James Love, Consumer Project on Technology, http://www.cptech.org > love@cptech.org, v. 1.202.387.8030, f 1.202.234.5176 > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:17:00 -0500 From: Andrew Lutts Subject: Re: [wg-c] new TLDs To us, the new TLDs look like a mixed bag. I can see ICANNs strategy to accept new TLDs of different types, but it doesn't seem to help the domain name shortage that much (for the immediate future, anyhow). Too bad they missed the boat on: .per .fam .sex .xxx and many other more popular generic ones. These would have helped to free up some namespace. Also, with .web, it looks like ICANN gave .info to Afilias to appease Afilias, and at the same time give Image Online Design a little more time to get .web ready for a future rollout next time around. Is that the way you see it? Andy ========================== Andrew Lutts Net Atlantic (978) 744-6885 http://www.netatlantic.com ========================== ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 19:11:06 +0200 From: "Paul Gregson - GMi" Subject: RE: [wg-c] new TLDs Sirs, I have been watching and reading from afar for some time now. It would seem that something has finally happened. I don't pretend to be as technically savvy as many of you out there, but one thing I have noticed today is in regards to the .name TLD. Global Names Registry who appear to have been awarded the rights to control this TLD are also linked to Name Planet (www.nameplanet.com). As some people on the list (me included) have personalized email addresses, it would appear that the demand for such personalization is high. This is Name Planets business. If my technical understanding is correct, Global Name Registry will keep control of all the 2nd(?) level TLDs (e.g. www.surname.name) and allow other ICANN affiliated registrars the ability to sell on 3rd level TLDs (www.firstname.surname.name). However, if you wish to utilize the email address firstname@surname.name, this will have to be done through Global Names Registry direct. If this is so (and I stand corrected) Global Names Registry (or their associates) would have a monopoly on these sure to be popular email addresses. Paul Gregson Gregson & Mutlu International Limited - -----Original Message----- From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 8:57 AM To: James Love; Jonathan Weinberg Cc: wg-c@dnso.org Subject: Re: [wg-c] new TLDs Does anyone know whether ICANN provided (or intends to provide) a written reason to those applicants who were rejected? I am assuming the board took an up-or-down vote, but I am wondering whether board also intends to attempt to show the vote was not arbitrary by sending out a written response? Rod - ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Love" To: "Jonathan Weinberg" Cc: Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 12:04 AM Subject: Re: [wg-c] new TLDs > I have recieved some private mail, asking if we were happy with the > ICANN results, and the answer is no. Like many others, were were > disappointed with many of the rejections and many of the comments from > various board members. That said, I think that Jonathan and others who > moved the process forward deserve thanks, and I hope this leads to a > further expansion of the root. I thought it was interesting how close > the numbers came to the 6 to 10 from the WG-C report. We'd like to see > thousands added, and I imagine these will lead to a much greater number > down the road. I hope so. I feel badly for those who paid the $50k and > were rejected on very arbitrary grounds. > > Jamie > > > On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, James Love wrote: > > > Kudos really to Jonathan, and in its own way, ICANN seems to be doing > > the Working Group C report. Jamie > > > > > > On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > > > > > The ICANN Board just approved seven new TLDs: BIZ (JVTeam), INFO > > > (Afilias), NAME (Global Name Registry), PRO (RegistryPro), MUSEUM (MDMA), > > > AERO (SITA), and COOP (NCDA). Kudos to all who helped to bring this > > > about. > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > > > > > Jonathan Weinberg > > > weinberg@msen.com > > > > > > > > > -- > -------------------------- > James Love, Consumer Project on Technology, http://www.cptech.org > love@cptech.org, v. 1.202.387.8030, f 1.202.234.5176 > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:46:13 -0500 (EST) From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: Re: [wg-c] new TLDs On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, James Love wrote: > I have recieved some private mail, asking if we were happy with the > ICANN results, and the answer is no. Like many others, were were > disappointed with many of the rejections and many of the comments from > various board members. That said, I think that Jonathan and others who > moved the process forward deserve thanks, and I hope this leads to a > further expansion of the root. I thought it was interesting how close > the numbers came to the 6 to 10 from the WG-C report. We'd like to see > thousands added, and I imagine these will lead to a much greater number > down the road. I hope so. I feel badly for those who paid the $50k and > were rejected on very arbitrary grounds. I agree, FWIW, that there was a whole lot wrong with the selection process, which was ad hoc and arbitrary; to pick just one example, I think the way that the Sarnoff application (I've got no connection with it) was first accepted and then torpedoed was completely egregious. (I'm confident, Rod, that we won't see any written explanations of the Board's decisions.) But there were a lot of days while the process was unfolding when I was unsure whether we'd see any new TLDs at all. I'm glad we've made it this far, and hopeful that the Board members (although not staff) seem genuinely interested in further approvals. Jon Jonathan Weinberg weinberg@msen.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 21:22:46 -0800 From: Roeland Meyer Subject: RE: [wg-c] new TLDs Not at all. WRT WEB, the BoD is excersizing duck-and-cover. Of three possible scenarios, that is the one that hurts them the least. They deferred it to the new BoD. BTW, this ain't over yet, folks! > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Lutts [mailto:andy@netatlantic.com] > Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 7:17 AM > To: wg-c@dnso.org > Subject: Re: [wg-c] new TLDs > > > To us, the new TLDs look like a mixed bag. I can see ICANNs > strategy to accept new TLDs of different types, but it > doesn't seem to help the domain name shortage that much (for > the immediate future, anyhow). > > Too bad they missed the boat on: > .per > .fam > .sex > .xxx > and many other more popular generic ones. These would have > helped to free up some namespace. > > Also, with .web, it looks like ICANN gave .info to Afilias to > appease Afilias, and at the same time give Image Online > Design a little more time to get .web ready for a future > rollout next time around. > > Is that the way you see it? > > Andy > > ========================== > Andrew Lutts > Net Atlantic (978) 744-6885 > http://www.netatlantic.com > ========================== > ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #106 **************************