[atlarge-discuss] Comments on Stuart Lynn's "A Plan for Action Regarding New gTLDs"

["Bruce Young" <bruce@barelyadequate.info>]

Here's my take on this:

>I. A Proposal for the Board to Extend the Proof of Concept in Parallel with
>Evaluation of the new gTLDs:

The issues I see here:

	- Which gTLDs, and who has a voice in their selection?

	- What membership rules are going to be tied to these domains?

	- When do Techies get theirs?!  :) (Sorry! Couldn't resist!)

>II. A Plan for Implementing the Key Recommendations of the NTEPPTF Report
>regarding the Evaluation of New gTLDs:

The issues I see here:

	- How many new gTLDs?  There is really no legitimate technical reason
anyone has brought forward (other than old fashion supply & demand to keep
registration fees artificially high!) why we can't have hundreds or
thousands of new TLDs.  Based on three-letter alpha codes alone, the
permutations lead to over 17,000 possible TLDs.  Add in Unicode
foreign-language alphabets . . . you get the idea!  We need many more of
these than I expect Mr. Lynn is envisioning.  We need to get him to expand
his vision!

	- What rules are going to be tied to these domains, if any, that are not
already applicable to existing ones?

	- Will IP issues predominate, or should we start saying "enough is enough
already!" and say new gTLDs are strictly first come, first served?  I
obviously vote for the latter!  Corporations have already spent enough
useless dollars registering "redirected domains".

	- What rules are going to be put in place to administer them, ensure fair
access to everyone, and to *punish* registrars who violate the rules?!  I
envision an independant watchdog panel to detect violations and pass them to
ICANN.

>III. A Recommendation that the Board seek DNSO (or its successor) advice on
how to evolve the top level generic namespace:

No way!  We need the involvement of the entire Internet community on this
one, not just the Internet Industry-dominated DNSO.  The future shape of the
top level generic namespace is more a political issue than a technical one,
and we need far greater discourse on this subject by groups and entities
representing diverse interests than the subjet would ever receive in a
closed DNSO forum!  If nothing else, forcing this to open dialog to happen,
with or without ICANN's blessing, needs to be the chief cause of the At
Large, and, I think, the primary focus of our Amsterdam meeting!


Bruce Young
Portland, Oregon USA
bruce@barelyadequate.info
http://www.barelyadequate.info
--------------------------------------------
Support democratic control of the Internet!
Go to http://www.icannatlarge.org and Join ICANN At Large!


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de