Yes, I understand that objection -- I'm not sure I really got my own point across. I am hoping someone who has some knowledge of how Verisign used pre-registration 10 or more years ago to capture market share might help us out here on that part of the draft, because it's that I was trying to refer to... -----Original Message-----
From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> Sent: Jun 10, 2011 7:25 PM To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net>, NA Discuss <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] statement on pre-registration draft for discussion
I agree with the general sentiment of avoiding confusion -- more, and more accurate information is better.
I disagree with the sentences below, specifically as regards "artificially creating demand." If the service acts as an indication of demand, we can dispute its accuracy (lots more people may "pre-register" if its free than might pay money for a registration, or vice versa, they might not want to show their hands early) but I don't think it's insidious for that reason. I see nothing wrong with letting people try to measure or justify demand for new TLDs however they like.
On 06/10/2011 06:24 PM, Beau Brendler wrote:
While United Domains says the pre-registration service is free and non-binding, the NARALO is concerned the offer of such a service could create artificial demand which could then be used to justify additional rounds of TLD creation and release, or might serve to confuse consumers.
Thanks, --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/