[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-c] There is no "consensus"
Jonathan Weinberg <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Three thoughts:
> I'm especially concerned about ICANN picking all of the new TLDs because
> it seems to me that this is the approach that centralizes the greatest
> degree of decisionmaking authority at the top. I think it's important to
> expand the name space -- but as ICANN takes its first few halting steps, I
> don't think this is the time to give it any more decisionmaking power than
> it has to have.
There are some points that I would like to make.
1) Root namespace *is finite*.
2) It is very likely that something like the domain name system will
still be used 30 (maybe even 100) years from now.
I am worried because many of the people in this working group are only
considering the near-term effects of their decisions. In the near term
there is a definite need for an expansion of namespace and more competition.
But what effect will it have in the long-term? Is it fair to give the best
gTLD namespace to those who come early, while only keeping some crumbles for
those who come late? I am concerned that this will happen when we open
the root namespace to everyone who wants to start a registry.
> 3. A few people have urged that we need to keep the number of new gTLDs
> small (say, 6 or 7) because trademark interests will lobby hard against a
> larger number. To the extent that this thinking is based on "practical
> political reality," as opposed to the view that it would in fact be bad
> policy to add more than a small number of new gTLDs, it may be misplaced.
> Fact is, whatever number this WG may come up with, there will be folks from
> the trademark community lobbying ICANN to cut it in half, because that's
> where they see their interest. Let's make a recommendation, if we can,
> based on our vision of good policy; I can guarantee that "practical
> political reality" will still get its due later in the process.
I agree with that point. On the one hand the businesses dependent on
trademarks have had to pay the highest price for cleaning up after
the first-come first-served don't-ask-questions policy. These
businesses are afraid that it will happen again.
On the other hand, if the trademark interests act like a dark
force that will lobby against TLDs regardless of how much we have
considered the trademark community in these decisions, there is
no point in considering their demands.
Onno Hovers (email@example.com)