RE: [wg-c] There is no "consensus"

[john.c.lewis@bt.com]

Be wary of ascribing limitations on the root namespace for there are some
regional regulators looking for assets to license.

Regards

John C Lewis

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Onno Hovers [SMTP:onno@surfer.xs4all.nl]
> Sent:	18 July 1999 11:47
> To:	wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject:	Re: [wg-c] There is no "consensus"
> 
> Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com> 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. 
> 
> Regards,
> -- 
> Onno Hovers (onno@surfer.xs4all.nl)