Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: Ray
Date/Time: Tue, October 17, 2000 at 6:30 PM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.5 using Windows 98
Score: 5
Subject: Internet Stability



you and I are mostly in agreement.  Your primary point of contention, however, with the current application and selection process is that the gTLD space is now very flat and that just one or two new gTLD's to compete against .com is not going to materially solve the problem.  Actually, working groups have been saying this same thing for years!

Again, we are in agreement except that the ICANN has publicly stated that due to a lack of experience in admitting new TLD's to the A-root, it may be best to be conservative in the total number of TLD's admitted in this round.  (Many experienced tech professionals disagree with this need for conservativeness).  But, in theory, what is learned from this round can then be applied to the next round, it has been said.  I believe even the ICANN agrees with the need for competition to the .com. (my opinion).  And I agree with you that one or two gTLD's will not accomplish the task.

Your point regarding .name falls under a restrictive TLD that the ICANN is also looking to test in this round as well.  Your points make sense regarding the need for restrictive TLD's (for faster search abilities or ease of use), but restrictive TLD's also open the controversial issue that someone (the registry?) then must decide whether an applicant is qualified to make a specific registration.  Once this precedent is set that someone can decide this, how far can this be taken and will self serving interests materialize over time?

Lastly, you mention that most all high profile domain names in the space of the to-be-announced new gTLD will be registered in a very short period of time.  To my knowledge, there is no way around this.  This is why first come, first served is the only fair approach, in my mind.  Now, next round if the ICANN says they may look to add a thousand gTLD's to the A-root in one fell swoop, the relevance of this issue lessens, as you have pointed out.

So, we are mostly in agreement.


Message Thread:

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy