Re: [ga] PLEASE COMMENT: Suggested ALAC response to sTLD RFP

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

However, a draft should only be prepared *after* discussions, not
before. And Wendy's email suggested there have been discussions on the
mailing list (where?) and in conference calls (archived where?),
meaning:

1) more time for ALAC "executives" to prepare positions
2) ability to "frame" the debate, based on a prepared position
document/draft.

Many of the folks *I* talk to want no more TLDs, whatsoever. It's not
as though the existing TLDs are "bursting at the seams". A moratorium
on new TLDs might actually cause the existing TLDs to become more fully
utilized, instead of having some folks waiting around to see if their
pet TLD is ever adopted.

How many of the .info or .biz domains actually lead to real sites? Or,
.museum? Or .pro? 

So, the real question should not be "How do we add more TLDs?", it
should we "Do we have any pressing need to add any at all?"

Taking the past "experiment" of expanded TLDs, was there much of a
benefit at all, from what was promised?

If there are going to be new TLDs, they better have well-defined
success criteria, specified in advance, with financial penalties if not
met. Failed TLDs should go dark, otherwise they simply pollute the
namespace. Has a TLD ever been removed from the namespace? Once in, it
seems destined to be a scar that stays with us forever....kind of like
ICANN policies, built on a regime and culture of failure.

Keep things lean, and there's less opportunity to screw things up.

If one wants, here's an alternative "draft statement" to frame the
debate:

--- start -----
We recommend:

1. No new TLDs for the next 5 years
--- end -------

:)

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/



--- Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2003-08-28 09:23:02 -0700, George Kirikos wrote:
> 
> > Why doesn't the ALAC lead discussions on the GA list, which has
> > been active in the past on numerous issues?
> 
> Guess why we are throwing a *draft* statement at you guys?
> 
> -- 
> Thomas Roessler			      <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>