ICANN Failing to Exercise Expected Objectivity

["Max Menius" <mmeniusjr@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Professor Carlton, for all his supposed analysis and insight capability, offers 
a moderately weak understanding of the larger problematic issues that new 
gTLD's will introduce. A number of somewhat contradictory speculations (and 
little substantive guidance) are provided. 

His "study", while most likely well intentioned, pales in comparison to the 
forward-thinking, articulate input already provided to ICANN Board members by 
large corporations, entrepreneur investors, legal representatives, domainers, 
website/content developers, and other experienced stakeholders. 

Are ICANN listening? I am suspicious of ICANN's seeming unending dedication to 
this new tld idea. And ICANN's failure to make a clear, cogent public statement 
that existing tld registries WILL NEVER BE ALLOWED to adopt unregulated 
pricing. This commission of an "independent consultant" appears a distraction 
from any real discussion of the many, many genuine concerns and problems 
already outlined in detail by so many enlightened comment contributors.

Let me remind ICANN that the many authors and contributors to the ICANN comment 
forum are experienced, accomplished business professionals. Many of which have 
special expertise in internet technologies and forming successful internet 
companies. ICANN's process, and ability to reason through to sound final 
judgements, will be scrutinzed and challenged with increasing vigor if this bad 
idea continues to be propped up. 

The new gTLD's are a mistake waiting to happen. ICANN have been forewarned, 
with notable intensity, that introduction of potentially unlimited tld's poses 
risks to the market. Risks to the internet's accumulated logic and 
organization. Risks of user confusion with both left and right sides of the dot 
now resembling each other en masse. Risks to the many, many corporations and 
brand holders who are expending greater and greater resources in a never-ending 
fight to tackle trademark exploitation. 

It strikes me as pompous that anyone might trivialize this enormous cost to 
companies who are trying to combat cybersquatting. Any ICANN member who 
"speculates" that infringement issues will "probably not" pose a significant 
threat via new tld's ... will be raked over the coals should that problem 
indeed escalate as forecasted. ICANN have a responsibility, facing them 
squarely, to BE CERTAIN that their decision will not create additional harm to 
companies or introduce instability to the internet, it's users, or internet 
commerce.

Numerous new gTLD's are not an innocuous concept. ICANN seem to fancy them a 
merely neato idea. ICANN need to treat this proposal as not some cutting-edge 
innovation around which they can someday boast, but a potentially harmful 
decision with domino-like ripple effects not unlike the de-regulation which led 
to the shocking mortgage collapse in America, and related economic problems 
that spread around the world.

Many risks, all unnecessary ... that outweigh the imagined benefit. This is no 
time to guess at the correct answer. ICANN had better get it right this time. 

M. Menius
Greensboro, NC, USA