[ncdnhc-discuss] New TLDs - plan for more

[Milton Mueller]

Adam:
As you imply, the issue is really what principle governs 
additions of TLDs, not specific numbers. The most 
disappointing, even crazy thing about Lynn's suggestion is 
that it perpetuates the completely unacceptable notion
that TLD additions are something that should be
dictated at ICANN's discretion, with no principles
or rules governing their addition over the long term.

Outside of a few military-run dictatorships and some 
outright cartels, no other administrator of a resource 
acts in this capricious and bizarre way. 

It also seems to perpetuate the myth that there is something 
technically risky about adding 3, when the technical
community is quite clear that there is not.

>>> Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> 10/31/02 02:16AM >>>
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