[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-c] Eureka?
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 02:34:31PM -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> I think Kevin's post is extremely helpful. There's been a lot of ink
> spilled attacking the idea that, on Day One of the new regime, we should
> immediately add 100 new gTLDs to the root. It seems to me, though, that
> that's a strawman: I'm not aware of anybody in the WG who's advocating
Quoted from a message to the list from you, on July 27:
I think it's safe to assume that in the short to medium term, ICANN
will authorize some number of TLDs falling in between these extreme
cases: fewer than 100, and more than three. My own thoughts are that
we'll be much better off if ICANN aims for the high side -- that is,
if it embraces a "lots of TLDs" approach.
That sounds to me like advocacy of a "lots of TLDs in a short to medium
term" approach. That is the position that is being argued against;
the phrase "100 immediately" is just a tag phrase labeling the
position you advocate. It is not a strawman.
> The debate within the WG, near as I can tell, is between three positions:
>  We should agree now on a phased rollout under which a lot of new TLDs
> end up being authorized over the next few years.
>  Having a lot of new TLDs sounds good in theory, but our action should
> be to add a few new gTLDs now, and later on we can revisit the possibility
> of adding additional ones (or not).
>  We should add a few (or no) new gTLDs and stop, because having lots of
> new gTLDs isn't a good idea.
> I think  won't work -- if we try it, odds are we'll end up adding a few
> new gTLDs and no more.
There is no evidence whatsoever for such a claim. In fact, it is far
more likely that more gTLDs will be added.
More disturbing, however, is your implicit assumption that nothing can
go wrong, and that we really should press on regardless of what we may
find from our first experience. The subtext of your position is "add
TLDs and damn the consequences".
> If we add three or five or seven new TLDs, and then
> replay the entire argument from scratch, the weight of inertia will be
> heavily on the side of those who argue against expanding the name space.
Odd how you could label the addition of a group of TLDs as "inertia"
against adding any more.
> Current TM interests will still oppose future TLDs; the new TLD operators
> added by ICANN won't be thrilled about further expansion either.
This assumes proprietary TLDs, and one TLD per registry. If TLDs are
not proprietary, and registries are non-profit, then addition of new
TLDs is not a heavy competitive threat. Furthermore, even in the case
of for-profit non-proprietary registries the addition of new TLDs is
not a threat, because a registry can bid on operating yet more TLDs.
As for the TM interests, if operation of half a dozen new gTLDs for six
months doesn't cause any measurable harm, then they will have a hard
time arguing against the addition of more. Even more, if it can be
demonstrated that the addition of new gTLDs has good effects such as
you and Milton claim, then they may very well be in favor of the
addition of more.
> Kent has argued that it's important to structure the name space; I think
> that's a separate issue.
Unfortunately, a structured name space is fundamentally incompatible
with the free-for-all name space that you advocate. So it can't
really be considered as a separate issue.
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
email@example.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain