Re: [ga] Re: On new TLDs

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My concern was that there might be a TLD land rush to grab up all viable
tlds similar to what we see for the rush to register all the best generic
domain names at the launch of a new tld.

I don't think we should wait and see. I think there needs to be some
regulations in place to avoid turning it into a TLD reseller market. I was
in on the .com land rush, a little late, but early enough to make some
money. I'm not saying that speculation is necessarily a bad thing. I did it
with domain names.

I just don't think that allowing that to happen with TLDs on that level will
benefit users and small businesses. It would however be a boon to businesses
with enough money to speculate on that level. I think that Verisign and
other companies would invest in speculation, either to make a profit or to
simply keep the new tlds from being used. Then all the tlds they decided to
suppress so they can control the market would be unavailable.

It's similar to the Hunt Family of Texas when they tried to corner the
silver market or the DeBeers Diamond Cartel artificially holding up the
price of diamonds. If several entities that currently run tlds got together
and created the new tlds, but didn't allow registrations for them or priced
them so high no one would register them, then the tlds they currently
control would still demand a higher price.

I'm not saying the scenarios I describe are likely to occur. I'm saying that
there should be a way to prevent it just in case it occurs.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Karl Auerbach" <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>; <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: On new TLDs


>
> On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, kidsearch wrote:
>
> > Karl, should there be limitations to the number of tlds one entity can
> > create?
>
> You are concerned about the creation of things like a "Clear Channel" or
> "Fox News" on the internet via TLD ownership?
>
> If we have a fair and objective allocation mechanism then at least it
> seems unlikely that at the initial allocation there will be excessive
> concentration (beyond that concentration that is guaranteed by thick
> wallets).  But there is always the subsequent reshuffling that occurs as
> those who got the allocation from ICANN transfer their winnings to others.
>
> It's a problem that exists in so may context and there are so few
> solutions that don't involve deeply structured regulatory systems.  We may
> just have to live with it for a while to see how it develops rather than
> try to imagine solutions for all possible future scenerios.
>
> By-the-way, Verisign isn't evil - they are just doing what for-profit
> corporations are supposed to do.  The bad part is that the US gov't and
> ICANN have given in so easily and so often.
>
> The Verisign negotiators have so often negotiated the pants off of the USG
> and of ICANN that we ought to nationalize those folks as a national asset
> and use 'em to negotiate a settlement to all kinds of international
> disputes.
>
>          --karl--