Q17: In view of the current competitive
conditions, should the promotion of effective competition in the provision of registration
services continue to be a significant motivation for adding fully open TLDs?
No
- it is false to beleive that competition is best served by introducing second rate
versions of dot com. Dot com has first mover advantage. New domains should ADD VALUE
and do what dot com can not - differentiate. A continued stream of charters
is the best competitive solution. And chosen according to the 6 WG principles.Q18:
Should the desire for diverse vendors of registry services in open TLDs be an important
motivation in adding fully open TLDs?
It is irrelevant.
Q19: Would the introduction
of additional undifferentiated TLDs result in increased inter-TLD confusion among
Internet users?
Yes.
Q20: Taking all the relevant factors into account, should
one or more fully open TLDs be included in the initial introduction?
No.
Q21:
How many?
Zero.
Q22: How effective would other fully open TLDs be in providing
effective competition to .com?
They would be ineffective.
Q23: What can be
done to maximize the prospect that new fully open TLDs will be attractive to consumers
as alternatives to .com?
Move away from the pre-conception that "fully open" means
best competition. Best competition is new TLDs that ADD VALUE. Then, ask how the
TLDs may do this.
Q24: Would the likelihood of effective competition with .com
be enhanced by making one or more of the single-character .com domains (which are
currently registered to the IANA) available for use as the basis of a third-level
registry (i.e. a registry that took registration of names in the form of example.e.com
or example.1.com)? Should the single-character .com domains be made available for
possible registry usage in conjunction with the initial group of additional TLDs?
No
- all these are second rate versions of dot com. Where is the ADDED VALUE?