RE: [registrars] White paper on new gTLDs from Philip Sheppard et al

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I personally don't support the concept of sponsored 
> versus non-sponsored.  I am more interested in what
> the TLD is for - not how it is governed.

Agreed. The last round of sTLDs included many of what I considered gTLDs
anyway.

I am also concerned with viability. Registry failure is going to happen
sooner or later. But there is no point in inviting it by only requiring
cetain financial and technical requirements for a new TLD. That does not
do much for promoting a stable and secure Internet. I think there also
needs to be verifiable market research that indicates viability, and
clear and well defined marketing plans from any applicant.

Tim
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [registrars] White paper on new gTLDs from Philip Sheppard et
al
From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, July 13, 2005 7:04 am
To: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hello All,

Philip Sheppard from the GNSO Business users constituency has produced a
white paper which has been sent to members of the ICANN Board.

Attached is the powerpoint version of this paper.

It proposes only sponsored TLDs.   I personally don't support the
concept of sponsored versus non-sponsored.  I am more interested in what
the TLD is for - not how it is governed.

I am interested in feedback from registrar members.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin