I fully agree with Patrick. Several smaller organisations invested time and money to get ready for the first run of the new GTLDs. Postponing the process for a longer time would be suicide for them. Nevertheless, accepting the actual proposal would also be disastrous and would only help the rich ones. A good balance between for lying documents and the many comments on the table is not something we can accomplish within a few weeks, say even a month or 2. It looks like the fees, at least that's my personal opinion, is the biggest hurdle and maybe a split into 2 basic approaches : one group being small organisations with maximum 100.000 domain names and a second group above that limit (just an example of possible solution). However, I'm still working on gathering all comments on this topic, some delay due to a cold followed by flu ... a better start of 2009 I could not find :-( See you all soon Rudi Vansnick Patrick Vande Walle schreef:
While I agree it would be best to suspend the process until the concerns are addressed, I think we should keep in mind that several potential new registries have already invested a lot of time, energy and money for a long time in this saga. For example, the DotBerlin folks have raised €1 million to cover their direct and indirect costs for submitting an application. They and their investors now expect to be able to recover their investment. Money's tight, especially in the current economic context.
I see some potential collateral damage, with new entrants throwing the towel, leaving the stage free for incumbents to apply for all the strings their deep pockets can afford. The latter have only marginal indirect costs. They can afford to wait.
By asking to suspend the process, we risk killing innovation and we play the game of the incumbents.
Patrick
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 14:32:38 -0500, "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels@uwimona.edu.jm> wrote:
I share John L's concerns and agree that the official posture should be
to
stop the process until the elements hereunder are addressed.
Carlton
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 3:35 PM, John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
Thank you for your effort in producing this document.
Yes, it's a good start.
While the Statement makes clear that which users find to be objectionable,
I am having trouble finding the clear advice that we seek to offer to the Board.
My advice would be to stop the new gTLD process until:
a) the promised Economic Study is released and evaluated
b) ICANN develops and implements compliance processes to manage *all* of the requirements in existing registry and registrar contracts, and develops compliance processes for any new or different requirements in new contracts.
2. Are we asking that we proceed with the rollout of IDN gTLDs and IDN
ccTLDs while we put generic TLDs on the back burner?
I realize that there is a lot of pressure from the non-anglophone world for IDN TLDs, but would rather that they delay IDN TLDs until at least the compliance is in place. I suspect the economic study is more relevant
to
IDN TLDs than to ASCII ones since there's likely too be close synonyms among names in different languages.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com,
ex-Mayor
"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg_atlarge-lists.icann....
Working Group direct URL: https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.2/1871 - Release Date: 1/01/2009 17:01