Comments on New gTLDS

[bwessels@xxxxxxxx]

Comments from: Brian Wessels
        Title: Senior Technical Writer
 Organization: Data Translation, Inc.


  1.  After reading the Initial Report, are there any other selection criteria
  which may be helpful for a new top level domain application round?

My reaction is that the process should be suspended. The truly functional TLDs
amount to a handful: .COM, .NET, .ORG, .EDU, .GOV, and .MIL. The remainder are
unnecessary and frivolous.

Adding TLDs creates two very real perils:

1) Every new TLD is a new resource for spammers, the biggest threat to Internet
viability today. Whether they can register in a TLD or not is irrelevant, as
they can spoof them regardless. (.INFO is a current favorite of spammers in my
experience.) A new round of TLDs sets back blacklists and filtering mechanisms
for months if not years.

2) Once again businesses are compelled to register their names and their
generic areas of interest (such as "books.com") in a new set of TLDs. This is a
large requirement across virtually all industry, again for an unnecessary
change.


  2.  Thinking about the issue of application fees for any new top level domain
  application, is there merit in graduated application fees to assist
  applicants?




  3.  Taking into account the experiences from the 2000 and 2004 round of new
  top level domains, do you have further comments to make about streamlining
  the application process?




  4.  Thinking about ICANN's responsibility to ensure competition in registry
  services operation, do you have any additional comments about how to
  encourage applications which would serve needs which are not met by the
  existing top level domains?

The premise is false: to "serve needs which are not met by the existing top
level domains." Previous additional TLDs have been a solution in search of a
problem.


  5.  Looking closely at the technical selection criteria section of the
  Report, are there any further comments which would assist with identifying
  appropriate base line technical criteria for new applications?




  6.  Do you have any further comment to make on the use of the first come
  first served system for processing applications and then whether auctions or
  lotteries are appropriate ways of resolving competition between applications?




  7.  Do you have any further views on the kinds of new TLDs that might be
  encouraged? Specifically, do members of the community expect the existing
  differentiation between sponsored, generic, chartered and open TLDs to
  remain?
  

The existing differentiation is absolutely needed; more confusion and scams
will result without it.