[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on
Milton Mueller wrote:
> Paul Garrin wrote:
> > I would agree with option 1 if the "few" new gTLDs added were operated
> > by more than one registry, representing all models.
> Yes! The reason I reject Option 1 under any circumstances isthat it seems to
> preclude registry competition.
> Competition in the registry business is much more important
> an objective than new TLDs per se, and a form of competition
> that permits varying models is the most important.
Would you care to explain in easy terms how for example ".sport" would
compete against ".law"? I can't see that ".au" has much competition from
".uk". In fact I would imagine that most domains under ".au" belong to
Australian based companies/entities, while those under ".uk" would mainly
belong to UK entities.
In the same way, I would *expect* that most that is under ".sport" would
have some links to some form of sport, while most SLDs under ".law" would
be offering/selling/discussing legal services/events/etc...
(maybe someone selling shotguns with a slogan like "'shoot a lawyer' season
opens tomorrow, buy a gun from us" would have a valid reason to wonder under
which TLD, but apart from that...)
If the ending of the TLD has no real meaning, but is rather a brand of the
company that markets it, then why is noone saying "hey, I want to run
> If we can forward to the Names Council a recommendation that
> says, "immediately authorize enough new TLDs to allow
> a significant number of new registries to enter the market
> and compete," I will be satisfied.
Hmmm... I have my reservations about that text, but it's not too bad, as
long as we're talking about the competition that those registries will have
to win a tender.
Yours, John Broomfield.