Existence of this comment period demonstrate new gTLDs proposal was half-baked
- To: "comments-closed-generic-05feb13@xxxxxxxxx" <comments-closed-generic-05feb13@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Existence of this comment period demonstrate new gTLDs proposal was half-baked
- From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 18:35:11 -0800 (PST)
Comments on "Closed Generic" gTLD Applications
Submitted By: George Kirikos
Company: Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.
Company URL: http://www.leap.com/
Date: February 5, 2013
The very existence of this comment period, seeking late guidance regarding
"closed generic" gTLD applications, demonstrates convincingly that the ICANN
Board pushed through a half-baked proposal, with artificial deadlines promoting
the interests of insiders, rather than waiting until there was a thorough
community consensus around a solid plan. Now the chickens should come home to
It's time to seriously consider abandoning the new gTLDs plan, refund the
application fees, and go with another approach. Unlike the Boeing 787
Dreamliner which was grounded due to battery issues, the ICANN new gTLD plan
has never taken flight, and should be relegated to the scrap heap of history
before it causes damage to the community.
Experts like Tim Berners-Lee had warned ICANN that new gTLDs were a bad idea:
ICANN ignored this expert advice, and the advice of many other entities. ICANN
is in litigation at present over .XXX. Universities, colleges, and many other
groups wasted millions of dollars to reserve .xxx domains that they *didn't*
want to resolve. From the perspective of ICANN, they probably consider .xxx a
success --- just like those who think vandals breaking windows are "good for
the economy" because vandalism creates jobs for those making and installing new
We continue to believe that a more orderly approach to the introduction of new
gTLDs (which we continue to oppose) could have been accomplished using our
"Ascended TLDs" model, as discussed at:
This would have been a far more elegant approach, and much less controversial
than the incomplete and flawed system adopted by ICANN that served the
interests of ICANN insiders who lobbied for a plan that ignored the public
interest. ICANN only considered its own plan, pushed by its insiders, and gave
no consideration to other plans produced by the community. That was wrong.
By abandoning the current new gTLD plan, ICANN can recognize that it needs more
time to "get things right" rather than cut corners and "do things fast." The
"damage", if any, would mainly be felt by ICANN insiders, which is somewhat
poetic justice. There would not be damage felt by the public by abandoning the
plan now, recognizing that the current path has been a mistake. As Tim
Berners-Lee rightly stated:
"The root of the domain name system is a single public resource, by design. Its
control must be for and, indirectly, by the people as a whole. To give away a
large chunk of this to a private group would be simply a betrayal of the public
trust put in ICANN."
Just like ICANN "got it wrong" with the VeriSign .com agreement (which was
amended by the DOC/NTIA), ICANN has it wrong with the current new TLDs plan.
ICANN does not appear to have any "metrics" that recognize its own failures.
When one doesn't own a ruler, every measurement can be declared a "success."
ICANN never declared their version of the VeriSign contract a "failure", just
like ICANN does not consider the new TLDs plan to be a failure. It's time to
buy ICANN a ruler from Staples or Office Depot, and declare the new TLDs plan a
I call upon the GAC, NTIA, DOC, and DOJ to open up their own independent public
comment periods, unfiltered by ICANN staff "summaries", so they can chart a new