Contrast Beckstrom's interview with DelBianco's Argument Against New TLDs

[McTim]

On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Alex Gakuru <gakuru at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> That said, I do not mean to support monopolies as "the one true way"
> to lowest prices. I also look forward to a model that optimises on
> competition at registries level without proposing that all *everyone*
> becomes a registry paying $$ to ICANN. I've just been re-informed DAG
> (v3) will be out before 24th Oct.

Do you mean "registrar" here and not "registry"?

>
>> On the other hand, and something that I believe was mentioned somewhere
>> but not many talk much about it, getting a name in a new gTLD has some
>> painful glitches that has been experienced in the past when the new
>> TLDs were introduce during the "proof of concept" days.
>
> Didn't know about it. Will look it up.
>
>> There are many applications, canned scripts, filters, etc, that rely on
>> a limited number of TLDs and a quasi stable root zone with no frequent
>> changes to validate fully qualified domain names. For example some
>> popular scripts for processing forms on shopping carts or subscriptions
>> to electronic mailing lists do not validate the address you put on the
>> forms doing a dynamic query (even in some cases a dynamic query
>> may not help for validation because some ISPs are tampering with the
>> DNS to manipulate the responses to direct you to a web page of their
>> choice), they check the address against a static table that contains
>> the ccTLDs and the well known and established TLDs.
>
> Add censored links and the problem gets compounded. Telcos/ISPs in
> such regimes may sprinkle some own private net access controls then
> blame it on 'complicated' new gTLDs meanwhile.


Can you give an example of this behavior? Are you talking about a
SiteFinder like system?

>
>> When I've got my amodio.biz domain it took me a while to deal with
>> all the sites that didn't recognize .BIZ as a valid TLD.
>>
>> So despite that there will be some confusion with the new gTLDs,
>> some things will not work on day one.
>
> Add IPv4 exhaustion in 731 days ( see counter at
> http://www.ipv6forum.com/). I think ICANN needs us more than we need
> them. They should be on bended knees pleading with NCUC's Civil
> Society to help them innovate on advocacy for IPv6 integration e.g.
> "expanded online expression spaces", "unlimited IP address for
> everyone in the world" etc.

There is an ASO within ICANN that does this.  I am sure that any
efforts we could make would be welcome, but I doubt that anyone will
go down on their knees begging us to help out in this regard.


>
>> In some other places people avoid the ccTLDs because of the poor
>> service some ccTLD administrators provide, even if they don't charge
>> a dime for it (which is a warning sign that there is always a chance
>> that the ccTLD operation may become underfunded and not up to
>> the task).
>
> ditto. And further, commencing a conversation with Randy Bush and
> Michuki Mwangi on AfTLDs.
>
>> Going back the root scalability reports, this is a very interesting
>> article that captures what is being said between the lines on the
>> reports, ie we may see new gTLDs perhaps in 2012.
>> http://www.internetcommerce.org/ICANN_Delaying_New_gTLD
>
> After getting over IPv4 exhaustion and envisaged v6 integration challenges?
>
>> I hope these reports (if not ignored by the board and the rest of
>> the community) help to remove some of the pressure from the
>> gTLD program and provide another chance to do it right.
>>
> Any study on the impact of proceeding with both "full-scale" vs.
> internet stability?

yes

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-18sep09-en.htm


--
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel