Re: [ga] Vint: on the basic rationale for adding TLDs and any contra-indications

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, the more TLDs there are, the more competition, and therefore arguably
the better it will be for the actual consumer. On the other hand, I believe
that the more TLDs there are, the more the .com default will have supremacy.

But that's not the point. The point is that as a Scot I should be able to
register to my own .scot registry if I want to (which I do!).

Let the market determine what is viable or what's not viable.

After all, ICANN doesn't own the Net.

The only counter-argument I'd regard as worth considering is whether we
shouldn't try to build some over-arching taxonomy, so that the entire
Internet as we have it (pre-balkanisation) may operate in some structured
way that makes it easier for Joe Punter to navigate.

But I guess the more TLDs we have, the more dependent we'll all become on
various search mechanisms (which we already use anyway).

These New TLDs - there's no serious technical block on them happening... so
what IS the block?

Yrs,

Richard H
www.atlarge.org

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joop Teernstra" <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The ultimate rationale for allowing the addition of new TLD  surely must
be
> the Free Market.
> There must be competition, so that Internet Users don't get ripped off
> and/or robbed of their rights.
>
> Is allowing competition  not the best consumer protection?
>
> Domain Name registrants are not even just consumers of domain names.
> They are producers of domain names and creators of Domains.
> As producers they are even more deserving of protection.
>
> The existing TLD's all have captive markets (with the "ICANN accredited"
> registrars as middlemen) and so get away with extremely
> registrant-unfriendly contracts.
>
> Why  dot ca gets away with stipulating that the registrant gives up all
his
> property rights in his domain name??
> see http://www.circleid.com/posts/is_a_domain_name_property/#1624
>
>
> Because there is no dot canada to run to, a registry that would offer a
> registration contract that does just the opposite and specifically
> strengthens the owner's property rights in his domain.
> At half the price.
>
> There would be a dot aotearoa to compete with dot nz, and the competition
> could well focus on the contractual rights.
>
> It doesn't mean that .nz would have to fear an instant and massive
> defection of registrants. But there would be freedom of choice between
> different utility providers.
>
> Karl is also right in saying that the artificial/regulatory blocking of
new
> TLD's stifles innovation.
>
> There could be a naturally evolving self-defined naming structure; a kind
> of wikipedia of TLD applications, with a volunteer-driven process that
> would allow an application to transparently mature into an actual registry
> ownership, an application  fee of  $500 (instead of $50.000), and an
income
> stream for an ICANN-like entity under light UN oversight allowing it to
> develop as an experimental form of global governance of  trans-border
assets.
> Let the best net-gods thrive.
>
> (If the EU would only propose something like that to WSIS)
>
> "Customer confusion" or  added enriching innovation?
>
> Of course the incumbent  monopolies with their captive customers, their
> de-facto power and their lobby are not stepping aside quietly. There is
> quite a bit to lose.
>
> But with every new form of assets the natural progression has always been
> from restriction by a (royal or priestly) hierarchy towards individual
> property rights, economic liquidity and free trade.
>
> First there is always the fight for the legal possession of the property
> rights in the assets.
>
> Still waiting for a Supreme Court to rule on it.
>
>
> -joop-
>
>