<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Fahad AlShirawi wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:0e7901c88ea1$d3e38000$7baa8000$@com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Actually I know this stream is old but... Well I have a comment...
Introduction of new gTLDs will actually in effect remove the land-rush and
crap... Nor right now but... With more choices... you don't have to jump to
protect a potential name...
Of course this is only one side of the argument and a simplistic view as
well but... well, I truly adhere to basic economics... increase supply and
price drops... Landrush crap can only go so far when supply is limited.
Since there is no technical reason not to introduce more gTLDs, this would
actually help in the long run...
</pre>
</blockquote>
With every new gTLD there is a new landrush, so more supply doesn't
really change anything.<br>
<br>
In fact, with each new gTLD, there are more opportunities for the
domain hoarders to exploit the perceived value of the domains.<br>
<br>
I am not totally against new gTLDs, but I think there needs to be
better methods to prevent the squatters from snapping up the namespace
and holding it ransom.<br>
<br>
--<br>
Jim Mercer<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:0e7901c88ea1$d3e38000$7baa8000$@com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Maybe...
Fahad.
-----Original Message-----
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:menog-bounces@menog.net">menog-bounces@menog.net</a> [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:menog-bounces@menog.net">mailto:menog-bounces@menog.net</a>] On Behalf Of
Baher Esmat
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 4:38 PM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jim.mercer@viszo.com">jim.mercer@viszo.com</a>; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:menog@menog.net">menog@menog.net</a>
Subject: RE: [menog] .asia landrush
Jim,
The points you raised could be valid from one perspective but there is also
a counter argument that the introduction of new gTLDs is about choice and
competition - choice for the end user (registrant) and competition among
businesses (registries and registrars). By the way, I'm not the best one to
defend this argument, probably because I'm an engineer :), but there are
voices within ICANN that have been criticizing ICANN not only for the delay
in introducing new gTLDs but also for the restrictions that this process may
entail.
And just to give a quick snapshot on how this works in ICANN, and since some
of the subscribers to this list are not acquainted with ICANN, I'll try to
make it simple. Policies developed within ICANN are developed by those who
participate in the various ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory
Committee. One of these organizations is called GNSO (Generic Names
Supporting Organization), which spent more than 2 years to develop policy
for introducing new gTLDs, and summarized its recommendations in this report
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://losangeles2007.icann.org/files/losangeles/gnso-newgtlds-workshop-29oc">http://losangeles2007.icann.org/files/losangeles/gnso-newgtlds-workshop-29oc</a>
t07.pdf. The report highlighted 5 main reasons why ICANN should introduce
new gTLDs:
1. It is consistent with the reasons articulated in 1999 when the first
proof-of concept round for new gTLDs was initiated;
2. There are no technical impediments to the introduction of new gTLDs, as
evidenced by the two previous rounds and as confirmed by technical experts
3. Expanding the domain name space to accommodate the introduction of both
new ASCII and internationalised domain name (IDN) TLDs will give end users
more choice about the nature of their presence on the Internet. In addition,
users may be able to use domain names in their language of choice;
4. There is demand for additional top-level domains as a business
opportunity, which can stimulate competition at the registry service level;
and
5. No compelling reason has been articulated not to proceed with a new
gTLD round.
These were the reasons GNSO has come up with and I'm sure that many would
argue against them!!
Regards,
Baher
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-----Original Message-----
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:menog-bounces@menog.net">menog-bounces@menog.net</a> [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:menog-bounces@menog.net">mailto:menog-bounces@menog.net</a>] On Behalf
Of <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jim.mercer@viszo.com">jim.mercer@viszo.com</a>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 11:24 AM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:menog@menog.net">menog@menog.net</a>
Subject: RE: [menog] .asia landrush
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">From: Baher Esmat <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:baher.esmat@icann.org"><baher.esmat@icann.org></a>
Bill, I personally couldn't agree more with you. The monetizing of
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">domain names has gone much farther than what people had envisaged 20 years
ago! It is perhaps something that engineers can't absorb :) and it is
going to grow more and more with the opening of new gTLD applications!
if ICANN had the balls to stand up to the lobbyists, and only create new
TLD's where they were absolutely necessary, it wouldn't be such a
playground for the speculators, and alot of the growth would die off.
normally, i'm in favour of having a body like ICANN in control of the
chief mechanisms that make the internet go, but i am starting to think
that shifting it to the UN or (ick!) the ITU might mean that there will be
less senseless commercial exploitation.
i mean, who really benefits from the introduction of .mobi?
did it create a whole new set of applications that would not have been
there had they not created .mobi?
what is the real benefit of .asia? will it miraculously create a new
economic zone where all of the internet entities in the asia demographic
will cooperate to dominate those in the .info namespace?
really, it is strictly a game to be played by those who a) "own" the
registry and b) those who will exploit it to trick people into thinking
they are losing something if they don't get their own .asia domain.
also, why are all the new TLD's based on english, which albeit the
dominant language of business, when english is no where near the dominant
language of the actual users of the internet?
things like IDN are more practical. although, its introduction will create
a whole new atmosphere of exploitation, not only from the speculation
front, but from the phishing fronts as well.
i'd be happy to see a moritorium on the creation of new TLD's until IDN
has been properly and widely integrated.
but, what do i know? i've only been dabbling on the internet since the
mid-80's.
--
Jim Mercer
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>