Re: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Mon, Aug 02, 1999 at 12:29:25PM -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote:
> 
> On 2 August 1999, "Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com> wrote:
> 
> [...snip]
> 
> > Nope.  I am reminded of Frederick the Great's aphorism: who tries to
> >defend e verything ends by defending nothing.  Simile, who tries to
> >insert a large number of gTLD s into the root zone ends up locking
> >the world into the existing three for ANOTHER 30 months.
> 
> Kevin, this is one of the things that bothers me.  You work from an 
> assumption that no matter what is proposed, no matter how reasonable
> we may be, no matter how much everyone bends over backwards in an 
> attempt to accomodate,

Tossing in 100 new gTLDs is hardly "bending over backward" to
accomodate the concerns of TM interests. 

> the TM/IP interests absolutely, positively
> will not budge from their position, period.

TM interests have already moved from their position.

> You assume that any effort to propose situations in which more than a
> token few new TLDs are added to the namespace will be greeted with
> harsh opposition from the TM/IP interests, and they will refuse to let
> any new TLDs exist.

Not at all.  What is being proposed is the simply prudent course of 
entering unknown territory slowly.  I don't oppose adding 100 new 
gTLDs because of TM interests -- I oppose it because it is crazy 
from an operational point of view ("operational" in the broader 
business sense, not the narrow technical sense, as I explained in my 
note to Milton.)  

That's why ICANN proposed 5 testbed registrars, instead of simply
throwing the doors open -- it's the intelligent, prudent thing to do.

> If that is indeed the case, then two things must follow:
>
> 1)  There is no need for a working group on this, because regardless
> of any proposals made, the TM/IP interests will always have their way.

There are many other details besides how many TLDs are added day one.

> 2) There exists a group that has complete control over domain name
> policy to the exclusion of all other groups.

TM interests don't have "complete control".  But there is no doubt
that they are influential. 

> Working from that position would indicate that any effort on this
> is a waste of time, because every time someone makes a suggestion,
> one can come back with, "Sorry, nope.  They won't allow it, don't
> go there."

TM interests have a clear and important concern about the sudden
addition of a large number of gTLDs, and they deserve to be
addressed.  Adding 100 new gTLDs at once is simply an affront to that
concern, and ignores it.  Adding a few new gTLDs and observing the
results is the reasonable approach; saying "Damn their eyes!" and
adding 100 new gTLDs immediately is *not* a reasonable approach -- it
is an absolutist, ideological, no-compromise position that ignores TM
concerns. 

> I'll keep arguing for expansion, because I don't believe the above is
> true.  I think that there are TM/IP interests sitting quietly in the
> background who are willing to listen to proposals, and who are willing
> to be flexible.

The question is not expansion, the question is timetable and 
strategy.  Every new system needs some testing; the ADRs need 
testing; ICANN regulatory mechanisms need testing.

> I also don't believe that any one group has that kind
> of power at this point.  If they do, anyone who did not immediately
> speak out against it would be doing the entire world a disservice.  At
> the very best, it would mean this entire organization is inherently
> flawed.
> 
> So, at least for now, humor us.  Let's pretend that the process works,

Humor us.  Pretend the process works, and let's add a few gTLDs and
see how it goes, and then we can visit more gTLDs.  "Implement, test,
refine" -- it's the Internet Way. 	

> and let's work trough some actual possibilities, without having
> someone constantly pointing at the looming specter of the TM group,
> proclaiming that everything we do is subject to their approval.

Forget the looming specter of the TM group.  Think "Responsible 
development of new systems".

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain