Amen to That!
Date: Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:59AM
Topic: ICANN Does Good

It is rare to see any ICANN body issue a statement I would be happy to sign, and almost unheard-of for a group other than the non-commercial constitutency to do it. Nevertheless, the gTLD registries have just issued a statement on new gTLDs that is about as good as it gets.

Ok, Ok, it's not perfect. It wants to extend the UDRP -- warts and all -- to new gTLDs. It's not a flying elephant, is it?

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Amen to That! | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 8 comments | Search Discussion
Click this button to post a comment to this story
The options below will change how the comments display
Threshold:
Check box to change your default comment view
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Re:Are we there yet?
by michael (froomkin@lawUNSPAM.tm) on Wednesday May 14 2003, @06:37PM (#11633)
User #4 Info | http://www.discourse.net/
I will change the entire ICANNWatch background to flying pigs for a week if Ambler's .web is added to the legacy root any time in the next two years.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Why more needed?
by RFassett on Saturday May 17 2003, @01:24PM (#11671)
User #3226 Info | http://www.enum.info
"...infinite domains available now"

there is the thought that second level domains that make no sense or are impossible to pronounce in its native language sort of defeats the purpose for which DNS functionality was invented...in this light, "infinite" is a bit of a stretch at the second level, no?

It is highly impractical (I won't say impossible) today for every Internet user to participate with the Internet by way of a second level domain name registration that makes sense and able to be pronounced, a fairly basic objective in my mind relative to the DNS invention...people talk about "end user confusion"...personally, I favor balancing "confusion" to the extent participation on-demand (complete with a value equation) is not compromised. Today, we are not close...and to me defines "stop energy" as this pertains to the DNS arena and its inherent functionaliy and purpose.

This does not mean, to me, that the trademark issue should be ignored and in fact has not been by way of UDRP and Sunrise policies, both very cost effective, opt-in procedures at the determination of each trademark holder. The fact that opting in to these procedures involves a cost that is above zero is not, to me, a reason to stop energy...there are what, 650M Internet users today and maybe 30M unique registrants at best? That's a 5% ratio. Is this considered satisfactory? If so, then fine. If not, then how does the trend become reversed? What would the Internet be like at 30%? We just do not know other than, and correct me if I am wrong, there is no technical reason to find this out.

The potential for increased end-user confusion is one outcome (or should I call this "dilution" just so that I am clear to all audiences). It is a concept or trade-off that most reasonable people recognize...but to stop energy at all costs when user participation is expected to double *again* within 5 years or so simply for the reason of "possible confusion" makes me wonder if DNS functionality (the assignment of names to numbers) should just simply be outlawed all together then. That is the logic, right? Just eliminate DNS and we avoid all possible end-user confusion as the Internet becomes piped in to the tune of 1.5B people world wide over the next 60-72 months...or do we accept the status quo of DNS (stop energy) and watch the DNS ratio decline to 2% or less? Personally, I would like to see 1.5B and 30% in a method carried out by responsible parties with reasonable planning and what this produces for everyone but understand that I have mostly been in the minority of such thinking.

Ray
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.




  • This article comes from ICANNWatch
    http://www.icannwatch.org/

    The URL for this story is:
    http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/14/1917210