How nice this "Internet for the Rich". I love the Anglo-Saxon practical money inductive reasoning ... There are definitly different cultures on this list : "I sell", "I do", "I follow", "we wait for the best opportunity for us", "may be, we could share". We will see who is the winner. jfc At 23:20 10/08/2008, Alan Greenberg wrote:

Patrick and Hong, I find your comments a strong over-reaction.

The issue that is being discussed is how to handle the situation of multiple people applying for the same TLD, and they cannot come to an agreement amongst themselves. Classic examples are ".web" and ".mail" but there are plenty of other examples.

The paper discusses the various ways of addressing such conflicts, and comes to the conclusion that auctions are probably the preferable path. If you disagree with this, that is fine. The only seeming practical alternative is a subjective analysis of which is the best for the overall good of the Internet or the communities or whatever (the so-called beauty contest). I find that alternative far too fraught with potential problems, but if that is what you favour, it would be interesting to hear how you think it can be done properly.

Using an auction to resolve the conflict does indeed mean that .web will not likely go to a small not-for-profit organization. If that is your concern, then in my mind, you are being somewhat unrealistic.

On the positive side, the possible auctions of these relatively few high-profile TLDs will likely bring in a LOT of money. It has repeatedly been suggested that this wind-fall profit not be simply wrapped into ICANN general funds, or even used to offset the costs of offering new gTLDs. But rather it be used to (with appropriate caution) make it less expensive and less onerous for not-for-profits, cultural communities and developing countries folks to acquire new gTLDs.

Now THAT is something that I think At-Large should make a strong statement about.

Alan