[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs
To rephrase Roeland's question, and to make it as blunt as possible
(because I've asked it myself and never seen an answer):
Why can't we say "There will be 100* new gTLDs, ..."
...and then either:
"Here's the timetable covering their rollout, with X many per day/month/
"And they will be rolled out as the market determines it can bear them.
This may mean initially that only 2 or 3 are adopted by the registries,
or even that none are. But by the end of year X, there will be 100*
new gTLDs in existence."
* NOTE: Figure for argument's sake only insert any LARGENUM.
Nobody's ever explained what's wrong with this, if anything. It
allows for a large number of new gTLDs, it satisfies the TM fears that
introducing LARGENUM of new gTLDs at once will be catastrophic.
And, as an extra, added, lemon-scented bonus, we don't all have to do
this again every month/quarter/year/fizbin when there's a need/desire
for more new gTLDs, because the decision to adopt them has already been
Mark C. Langston Let your voice be heard:
Systems Admin http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org