Re: [ga] this is ICANN's legacy

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Q6: Do you consider it fair and competitive to allow current companies who
monopolize most of the good, short one word domain names, to have an
advantage over every other business or individual user who has to choose 3-4
word domain names to compete with?-by Chris McElroy

Vint Cerf: I assume you mean by this, second level labels within a given
TLD? Registrations in the existing TLDs have been essentially open and
roughly speaking first come, first served, discounting some sunrise
processes introduced with some new TLDs. Your thesis seems to be that short
domain names are somehow more competitive than longer ones, or ones that are
hierarchical in structure. Given the way in which most products and services
are found on the net (through search, not through domain name guessing), I
am not sure I buy the competition argument I believe you are implicitly
making.

It's obvious Vint sees absolutely no need for new commercially viable TLDs.
He doesn't recognize there is even a shortage of good domain names.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <ploki_xyz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 1:35 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] this is ICANN's legacy


> Chris,
>
> Actually the Board never said that "there is absolutely no demand for new
> TLDs". If you claim it has taken little concrete action to address the
> issue, this is true.
> The real problem, the way I see it, that is risking to paralyse the Board
is
> not the "if", but the "how". You have witnessed the problems that just a
> limited introduction of supposedly less critical TLDs, like the
"sponsored"
> ones, has created, and the need for Board's time and resources that this
has
> implied.
> For me, the only sensible way to deal with the issue, is to have a set of
> rules that the Board can almost mechanically follow to delegate new TLDs.
> And personally I strongly believe that this can come only from a PDP
> developed by the GNSO.
> Just my 2c.
>
> Cheers,
> Roberto
>
>
> >From: "kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Subject: [ga] this is ICANN's legacy
> >Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 21:08:12 -0400
> >
>
>http://www.cheaphostingdirectory.com/news-domain-name-firm-launches-high-en
d-domain-name-auction-2057.html
> >
> >"The ever increasing demand for high quality business domain names,
coupled
> >with a very limited supply, has driven up the values of the best domains
to
> >the point of being called ''internet gold'' by many."
> >
> >But according to ICANN there is absolutely no demand for new TLDs.
> >
> >Does anyone on the ICANN Board read the news? Can any of them actually
> >read? Yes and that includes you Vint. I have defended you many times when
> >people unfairly accuse you of things, however, if you are turning a blind
> >eye to the need to open up the creation of TLDs, then you are in bed with
> >the coprporations that want to keep this articficial shortage going.
> >
> >go to http://www.dotworlds.com This may not be it, but at some point the
> >ICANN Board is going to make itself obsolete because they move like a
> >turtle with snail's disease.
> >
> >
> >
> >Chris McElroy
> >http://www.thingsthatjustpissmeoff.com
>
>