[ncdnhc-discuss] New TLDs - plan for more

[Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law]

They have to be sponsored so as to not threaten the revenue streams of the
open incumbents.  

That is why there is no chance of an open gTLD in the foreseeable future so
long as ICANN  serves as an anti-competitive chokepoint.

There is and could be no technical reason for favoring one administrative
regime over another as all TLDs look alike in the root zone.  This is
about oligopoly.

I would be delighted to be corrected if there is any evidence
contradicting any of the above.

On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, 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
> 
> 

-- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin at law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's hot here.<--