(I am a member of the advisory committee of Dotyp.com)Among
the original concepts of the Internet was robust technical
survivability. The
ICANN evaluation team treats the Internet as if it
isextremely fragile.
Technically, DNS and the root server system
form avery elegant system which can
survive cracking,
equipment failure, poweroutages and just plain stupid mistakes.
Every
engineer is aware that asystem is only as strong as its
weakest link. At
the moment, the weak link is the perception of
the ICANN evaluators.
So why
only 6-10 new gTLDs? From an engineering perspective,
adding 10 is not much different
than adding 100, if the underlying
system scales. Is this an engineering
decision or a business
decision? Is there some need maintain a sense of scarcity
to
prop up registration fees?
If ICANN evaluators were concerned with difficulties
of
implementing each additional TLD, they should consider the
simplicity
of implementing the offering from dotYP (.yp).
ICANN evaluators put dotYP
in a unique category, reflecting the
uniqueapproach of the dotYP technology.
dotYP is unlike the
other TLD applications in that it requires only a single
table entry
in the root server. This is unprecedented. Adding the
dotYP TLD
to the new set of registrants would be easier than any TLD ever
proposed.
However, I feel there should be many new TLDs. If the new
gTLDs
are broad enough, there will be no need for a zero-sum
equation game which prompts
a massive land rush to register in
the new domains. People will self-select
a domain that's right
for their purposes.
It seems like ICANN should be in
a position to balance the
opportunities of extending the frontiers of the Internet
with the
risks of causing technical problems which can't be remedied. I'm
clearly
on the side of taking the small risk of adding many new
TLDs against the alternatives.
I'm
reminded of the struggle in the mid '90s to enable
businesses to use .com for
true commercial services. The
market demand that was obvious to the rest of the
world only
became obvious to the Internet community after a great deal of
angst.
I've
read through some comments from Diebold, and feel that
their comments also apply
to dotYP. In fact, I feel that their
comments apply to many of the applicants.
I've paraphrased
their comments:
"The ICANN has the opportunity to admit dotYP
(.yp) into this
space where it can then apply its resources to the improvement
and advancement of the DNS. As a member of the internet
community that would
benefit from such DNS advancement, I
am certainly hopeful that the ICANN
realizes the technological
depth of this applicant.
"dotYP has applied for
TLDs that do not in any way conflict with
any other application. It appears
that dotYP is diligently and
promptly addressing ICANN 'concerns' specific to
the
application.
"Awarding dotYP .yp, .ypa, or .ypi offers more potential
benefits to
the internet community than would freezing out a company such
as
this. Thelatter would be a missed opportunity on the part of
the ICANN. I,
for one, would like to see what dotYP can
accomplish in this space. I am hopeful
that such an opportunity
is not one that gets passed by."
I'm adding my voice
to this and hope we can explore what the
Internet might become. We have
to take some risks. Let's get
going.
Steve Wozniak