I think the following point made by the RSSAC is very significant and certainly deserves further discussion. * Using concepts from the disciplines of library and cognitive science, what number of TLDs results in their loss of memorability and significance? Hard to balance this with freedom of expression goal, but it should be given more consideration. In addition, the marketplace trend is toward apps – not more websites. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D39C17.0E220DD0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Friday, February 02, 2018 7:05 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Fwd: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Request for Input Just in from the RSSAC. We will add the questions asked of us to the appropriate Work Tracks. Although some of the, may naturally fit in Work Track 4, others may be overall questions to the Working Group. If you have any thoughts on responses, please do not hesitate to weigh in and we will start keeping track on a Google Doc. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude USA / Valideus USA 1751 Pinnacle Dr., Suite 600 McLean, VA 22102 Jeff.Neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@comlaude.com> +1 (202) 549-5079 Begin forwarded message: From: Steve Sheng <steve.sheng@icann.org<mailto:steve.sheng@icann.org>> Date: February 2, 2018 at 8:49:36 AM EST To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, avri doria <avri@apc.org<mailto:avri@apc.org>> Cc: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "rssac@icann.org<mailto:rssac@icann.org>" <rssac@icann.org<mailto:rssac@icann.org>> Subject: Re: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Request for Input Dear Jeff and Avri, Per your request on 14 September 2017, attached please find RSSAC’s response on root scaling. In addition to its formal advice, the RSSAC raises the following questions for the wider community (including GNSO) to consider. These questions go beyond the specifics of operations of DNS, the IANA functions, and the root server system, to broader issues of the costs and benefits of aggressive expansion of the root zone: * Independent of expanding the commercial buoyancy of the DNS industry, how does the addition of many thousands of new gTLDs to the root zone make the Internet better for the people who use it, aside from the addition of IDNs for language and culture? * Using concepts from the disciplines of library and cognitive science, what number of TLDs results in their loss of memorability and significance? * Is adding a significantly large number of TLDs (e.g., more than 100,000) to the root zone, and presumably augmenting the business interests in the addressing system, a sustainable model for the DNS? At what point might this model fail. What next steps for naming system innovation are required, and when? Best Regards Steve Sheng on behalf of Tripti Sinha and Brad Verd Co-Chairs, Root Server System Advisory Committee ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
