On 31 March 2011 16:07, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@me.com> wrote:
First a clarification -- I dont think its fair to say that Applicant Guidebook policy development work for the last couple of years is unrelated to .PARIS, .NYC or other geo TLDs. More than 50% of policy work has concerned trademarks, and there will be at least as many trademark issues in large city TLDs as there will be in other TLDs
To your question -- If .NYC is delayed until 2013 due to the 'limitation' method I think domain registrants in New York City will be denied more choice and better prices for an additional 2 years
So what? Most end users are not domain registrants. Your issues are not their issues. Are there any current New York - related websites (or for that matter, ones based in Paris, Berlin or London) that are inaccessible to the public because of the current naming environment? What about the choices offered to consumers who find what they want using search engines and referral services rather than domain names? They're not affected ONE BIT. And I still don't accept your denial assertions, even on behalf of registrants. I note that .co -- a ccTLD that is now marketed as a gTLD -- is charging more than double what .com charges for second level domains. Here is one case in which the entrance of a new (pseudo-)gTLD has most certainly *not* led to lower prices for registrants; just the opposite, in fact. I wonder how much of the scarcity you claim, could be eliminated if the common trademark doctrine of "use it or lose it" was extended to domain names? - Evan