(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