Return to New TLD Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: Garry Anderson
Date/Time: Thu, November 1, 2001 at 9:54 AM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.5 using Windows 98
Subject: My fault?

Message:
 

 
Sorry, I should have been clearer - probably my fault.

Things are logical in my head - sometimes I do not write down correctly.

If you do not understand or if I do not explain myself properly - please let me know.

I said, "Just an idea on this phase for new TLD applicants."

TLD APPLICANTS - BEING CONSIDERED BY ICANN.

That being - rather than having all this chaos for customers of domains not knowing if a TLD is in with a faint chance of getting accepted for full status TLD - ICANN have a system set up for this.

They have no proper plan set up for this phase.

So that there is not hundreds of illegitimate .shop.blinkinganything.dotanythings selling domains to customers - spinning the lie that it may be accepted as the .shop TLD.

I consider this a con - of the type we have just seen on Sunrise and Landrush - were there may be no 'prize'.

Simon, I have no doubt that you have great desire for new.net - it is indeed a thorn in ICANNs side.

I have some misgivings, so will reserve my final judgement.

To answer your question:

Are you seriously saying, that ICANN will allow new.net the .shop TLD?
--> I never said that, where did you get that?
But I think whenever there is a next round of introducing new TLDs, New.net will THE player that couldn't be ignorated by ICANN. Maybe new.net could select two or three of their domains for the USG root. But ICANN won't duplicate TLDs from New.net because this would really lead to confusion: 71 mil (maybe more in the future) users will get New.nets domains, the others will get the ICANN domains.
ICANN could duplicate .info, .biz, .pro, .name because they are carried in roots that are accessible by not many people and there is nearly zero content.

So new net is better because it can be accessed by millions of people?

I can certainly understand that logic - and agree to a certain extent - but it fails to take many things into account.

There are others on this board who could give better argument than I about this.

I am thinking primarily of Christopher Ambler with .web - "they are carried in roots that are accessible by not many people".

But you qualified that with, "and there is nearly zero content."

How many customers would he have to get before deserving a chance at USG root?

Why should he suffer for trying to show 'proof of concept' on alternate root?
 

Link: WIPO.org.uk


Message Thread: