Re: [ga] Deja Vu

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Posting below to individual topics.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 9:53 PM
Subject: [ga] Deja Vu


> The GNSO council in the early part of 2002 invoked a
> committee of the whole (just as they have now) to
> address the question:  "whether to structure the
> evolution of the generic top level namespace and, if
> so, how to do so."
>
> It seems like we're going around in circles, again.
>
> The GNSO Council new gTLDs draft final committee
> report can be read here:
>
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030509.gTLDs-committee-conclusions-v4.html
>
> The report lists a set of criteria that have as a goal
> a consistent and common set of safeguards for
> consumers and users in the introduction of new names:
>
> 1.  Future expansion should increase the level of
> competition.

Then open it up to everyone. That generates competition. As to insuring no
one can monopolize the process, that's where I suggested limits to the
number of tlds held by one entity comes into play.

>
> 2.  Future expansion should avoid names that are
> confusingly similar so as to avoid confusing net
> users.

Why? A judge said that the "Lindows" operating system wasn't too similar to
the "windows" operating system. Open a lindow. Different string of letters =
different tld. TLD's are not going to be confused by the rules they have
applied to domain names and trademark infringement are they? TLDs are not
trademarks. This clause sounds like something from the IP constituency or
WIPO.

.met could be for metropolitan or metrorail systems or anything else someone
wants. Is it too similar to .net then? This restriction is not necessary.

>
> 3.  Future expansion should avoid names that might
> deceive or defraud net users.

You mean like .org does? Maybe ICANN should clean house of current frauds
before worrying about future ones. It's up to the tld owner to legitimize
his/her tld. If someone takes .atty and people can't find attorneys there,
then they will sell less domain names. If, on the other hand, the tld owner
requires proof you are an attorney before selling you a domain name, then
they would have a market. Let tld owners worry about their own legitimacy.
ICANN is not the net police.

>
> 4.  An easily understood relationship must exist
> between a new gTLD and its stated purpose.

It's purpose is to market domain names. The current tld managers have no
other higher purpose, why would new tld owners need one? If they create a
purpose, then it adds to their own legitmacy. It's their business. Let them
run it.

>
> 5.  Future names should be both for commercial and
> non-commercial purposes.

Again, let the market decide. Some will want to manage non-commercial tlds
and some will want to manage commercial tlds. Again, it's their business,
let them run it.

>
> 6.  Future names should add-value to the domain name
> system.

Not entirely. Someone could start a tld just because they want to. They
don't have to add value to the Internet. They won't sell many domain names
that way, but it's their business. If someone wants .doodoo, then let them
go to the expense of having it. This is like telling domain name owners that
unless we like your domain name you can't register it. There are a lot of
people with terrible domain names that don't add any value whatsoever to the
Internet. Does that mean they shouldn't have the right to register a bad
domain name? Same applies to bad tlds. We, or ICANN, doesn't have the right
to tell a tld owner that the tld they want to register has no value. What's
next? Are we going to go surf the web and tell people with ugly websites
that they have to take them down because they don't add value to the
Internet? I'd lose a couple, myself, so I strongly support our right to also
build ugly websites if we want to!

>The purpose of introducing new names is to
> make the domain name system more useful and more
> accessible to broader communities of interest and to
> more end users.

Therefore, ICANN needs to let them have BROADER access to tlds that appeal
to BROADER communities. ICANN needs to be USEFUL to those who wish to create
a new tld and quit regulating it to death.

Chris McElroy
http://www.newsandmediablog.com
http://www.wholettheblogout.com
http://www.newsandmediablog.com

>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>