| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
 ICANN's Creation of more sponsored TLDs
posted by tbyfield on Friday December 06 2002, @04:47AM
Anonymous writes "As we all know, ICANN, in the form of President Stuart Lynn, is calling for the creation of 3 more gTLDs, this time of the sponsored variety only. This is in direct opposition to ICANN's published position [in Reconsideration Request 00-14 -- tbyfield]:"
|
|
 |
|
Second, it should be clear that no applications were rejected; the object was not to pick winners and losers, but to select a limited number of appropriate proposals for a proof of concept. All of the proposals not selected remain pending, and those submitting them will certainly have the option to have them considered if and when additional TLD selections are made.
It is my opinion that, should ICANN contemplate additional TLD selections, they must open the process to all first round applicants, of all types of gTLDs, who wish to have their pending application receive further consideration. If, in the opinion of ICANN, there is reason to create more TLDs, the restriction to sponsored only is a regulation of the market for domain name services that has no obvious purpose other than to make it easier for ICANN to exclude new competition. Clearly, ICANN is trying to reduce the political pressure for more TLDs, reduce the pressure from the losers of the .ORG re-bid and the first round, yet keep any real competition for insiders as far away as possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
[ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]
|
|
| | |
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
ICANN's Creation of more sponsored TLDs
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 27 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
|
I'll repeat what I said on another topic, and then it's time for a long weekend in the countryside:
There is nothing wrong with the new TLDs. They are succeeding or failing on their own merits.
What is wrong is that there aren't more. What is wrong, more specifically, is that there are companies who wish to be registries who are not being allowed to do so for no good reason.
As long as there is a single, qualified applicant being told that they will not be considered, ICANN is restricting access to a market for no good reason. In any other industry, this would be a violation of antitrust laws.
Why not here?
++Peter
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
Have any of those reports been made publicly viewable yet? The agreements provided timetables where various reports were to be kept confidential for varying lengths of time, after which they would be publicly available. By now, quite a few of the reports should be past their period of confidentiality, so where can we see them?
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
- 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
|
|
|
|
There're probably going to be new tlds but they most probably are not going to be unrestricted gTlds; the time for this baby has run out. They're already talking about taxonomic models for DNS. Also, a new gTLD like .WEB would just be a repeat of .NET, which is not that successful even though run by the same registry as .com. So an argument that a better run registry would somehow make such a tld successful does not make sense. And, if this .WEB thing ever get its way into the official ICANN root system, one of the conditions will/should be that ALL the names be available to anyone who qualifies; the public/businesses will/should not be deprived of the prime names registered by .WEB speculators before the fact (it becoming an official tld). How would that be for fairness and open market competition?
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| | | 1 reply beneath your current threshold. |
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
