[Date Prev]
[Date Next]
[Thread Prev]
[Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
- 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]
|