Q25: Is increasing the utility of the DNS as a resource-location tool an appropriate
goal in the introduction of new TLDs?
Yes.Q26: Would the introduction of unrestricted,
undifferentiated TLDs run counter to this goal?
Yes
Q27: If so, are there ways
of accommodating the goal of enhancing registry-level competition with the goal of
enhancing the utility of the DNS?
Yes. Charters ADD VALUE. A continous stream
of new chartered domains would enhance utility and registry-level competition.(Dot
com is a diminishing resource).
Q28: Is the concept of TLD "charters" helpful in
promoting the appropriate evolution of the DNS?
Yes.
Q29: Are the first three
principles outlined in the second additional consensus point of WG-C's 17 April 2000
supplemental report (quoted above) appropriate criteria for selecting TLDs to be
introduced in the first group?
Yes.
Q30: Do those principles preclude the introduction
of any new fully open TLDs?
No. A TLD with a wide charter is in effect an open
TLD - but one with ADDED VALUE.
Q31: What types of TLDs should be included in
the first group of additional TLDs to best test the concept of chartered TLDs?
The
question has an internal contradiction. Charters will work if the world knows they
will be issued continously. Do not misinterpret "controlled introduction" for "piecemeal
introduction".
Q32: Should chartered TLDs be introduced according to a pre-defined
system, or should proposals be evaluated on an individualized basis?
Evaluate
proposals based on detailed guidelines which are themselves based on the 6 WG C principles.
Q33:
If charter proposals are evaluated on an individualized basis, should any steps should
be taken to promote stable and orderly evolution of the DNS overall? If the proposals
are evaluated based on the 6 WG C principles this is taken care of.