RE: [alac] Comments on the draft request for new TLDs

[Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 04:56 PM 06/30/2003 +0200, R.Gaetano@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> Wendy Seltzer wrote:
>
> >
> > In general, I agree.  However, the Lynn proposal in Rio and
> > before was to
> > add a "limited number" of sponsored TLDs to the "testbed"
> > period, before
> > opening for general expansion at some later time.  These are
> > theoretically
> > just additions to the testbed.  I think that rather than
> > challenging the
> > limitation to sponsored in this case, we should urge ICANN to
> > move quickly
> > beyond "testing" to addition of a full range of new gTLDs.
> >
>
> But that's exactly the point.
> We should be already at the stage in which the "testing" is finished and we
> move to a new phase.

Yes, of course.  We could urge Twomey to throw out Lynn's incrementalism 
and move ahead with real namespace expansion now.  I don't see what still 
needs to be tested, either.  I'm just concerned that if we raise that as an 
objection to this RFP, we'd be thrown out on procedural grounds, that we 
were too late in objecting to a framework that's been in place for months.

Ugh, I'm thinking ICANNese already.
--Wendy

--
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx
Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
Chilling Effects: http://www.chillingeffects.org/