[Date Prev]   [Date Next]   [Thread Prev]   [Thread Next]   [Date Index]   [Thread Index]


Re: A Plan for Action Regarding New gTLDs
Post a reply
  • To: gtld-plan-comments@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: A Plan for Action Regarding New gTLDs
  • From: DannyYounger@xxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 10:46:07 EST
  • Cc: atlarge-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, sirenj@xxxxxx

Stuart Lynn's proposed action plan suffers from undue reliance upon anecdotal 
evidence that has tainted his appraisal of the situation.  Comments such as 
"In any event, there appears to be little demand right now for new 
unsponsored TLDs  – at least, no one is banging at my door", are indicative 
of a failure to recognize that which has become readily apparent to the 
Department of Commerce and others -- namely, that continued concerns 
regarding undefined processes, procedures and standards for ensuring 
predictability and transparency in the gTLD selection process have had a 
deleterious effect... when the Community is of the belief that TLDs will only 
be parceled out in bits and pieces in a rigged game to favored ICANN insiders 
(for example to Business Constituency members such as Ron Andruff and Patrick 
Murphy of Tralliance Corporation and IATA respectively), there is little 
incentive for anyone else to bang on Stuart's door.  For ICANN to be 
successful it must act to garner the full support and confidence of the 
global Internet community.  This will not happen in a climate devoid of trust 
and in which it appears that predictability only means that select insiders 
will get the nod.  

Stuart Lynn has argued that "It is hard to find anyone who would argue that 
tens or perhaps even hundreds of new small- to medium-sized gTLDs could not 
be safely added (as opposed to thousands or tens of thousands – numbers which 
have raised concerns among some in the technical community), particularly if 
there were careful monitoring of overall DNS performance as the new gTLDs 
were introduced."  If ICANN seeks to comply with Department of Commerce 
directives to restore community confidence it should begin by vastly opening 
up the gTLD selection process to allow for far more TLDs than the scant three 
that have been recommended.  Limiting the selection to a mere few will only 
fuel the belief that the gTLD selection process remains perversely tainted 
and is designed to protect entrenched interests at the expense of all others.


[Date Prev]   [Date Next]   [Thread Prev]   [Thread Next]   [Date Index]   [Thread Index]