[ncdnhc-discuss] New TLDs - plan for more

[J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin]

Dear Adam,
AmerICANN is an US Gov agency. I would not be suprised that the new sTLD 
would be ".edu" equivalent, ie a way for the USA to build an international 
pre-marketshare on the leading markets where they feel Europe or others 
might take a lead (we see that at the WSIS preparation). This would explain 
Stuart's weak presentation. They could be telemedecine, net security 
management, testing oriented. The 10.000 reference would then appear as a 
justification rather than as a target.
jfc

At 08:16 31/10/02, Adam Peake wrote:

>Chun, Harold, Erick:
>
>Yesterday, Stuart Lynn began a discussion about the introduction of new 
>TLDs. He will issue a report early next week (Monday?) describing his 
>recommendations and the names council will begin considering the issue.
>
>Aware that the detailed report isn't yet available, and we should wait to 
>read it before getting too excited, one surprise in Stuart's presentation 
>was his suggestion as to the number and type of TLDs, namely 3 and 
>sponsored. I'm concerned that our natural reaction may be to focus on the 
>number type rather than rationale for the suggestion. So, if the report 
>does not adequately describe why 3 and sponsored, then I think a request 
>for such information from Stuart/staff should be the first thing the names 
>council does. Worth noting that we have not seen any report of the 
>experiences of the current sponsored TLD operators as part of the original 
>proof of concept.
>
>Again, what I'm asking is, if the report does not clearly explain the 
>rationale for the suggestion of 3 sponsored TLDs as an extension of the 
>current proof of concept, then our names council representatives should 
>ask the names council to ask Stuart/staff for such a rationale. And that 
>it be provided very quickly.
>
>And the reason I'm asking now, rather than waiting to read the report is 
>that Stuart's presentation yesterday was a little confused (example, he 
>suggested the IETF might like to comment on whether 3 TLDs could 
>destabilize the net, then in discussion told us that 10,000 new TLDs would 
>be just fine -- odd, and also not in line with the output of the NTEPPTF), 
>and I'll be travelling next week so may not have chance to mention this 
>again! But I think it's important and hope you will consider it.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Adam
>
>--
>_______________________________________________
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.408 / Virus Database: 230 - Release Date: 24/10/02