[At-Large] New gTLDs

[Wendy Seltzer]

John L wrote:
>> It depends on how you measure success. .CAT only has 20'000 names, yet it is 
>> a success.
> 
> Ah, right, I forgot about .CAT.  You're right, it's not the raw size, it's 
> the extent to which the intended community uses it.  But I still don't see 
> the beauty contest as an effective way to pick winners since it's about 3 
> for 12 at this point.  A lottery would probably do as well, at much lower 
> cost.

Indeed, at lower financial and regulatory cost, since the cost of
fending off lobbyists or the legitimacy cost of giving in to special
interests should be factored in.  "Success" should be measured by the
market, where, as here, there's no serious cost of failure.  Why should
we care if .coop or .aero fails?

Does any among us (ALAC/RALO/ALS/individuals) support the 26-step
process in the GNSO report, or do you support more or fewer gates to
introduction of new gTLDs? Perhaps we could gather these thoughts to see
whether there's At-Large consensus.
GNSO repport <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/pdp-dec05-fr-a-18jun07.pdf>

(Myself, I support an auction or lottery for a large number of new TLDs,
limited only by registry operators' commitment to escrow the
registration info against possible failure.
<http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2007/07/01/aging_the_internet_prematurely_one_pdp_at_a_time.html>)

--Wendy

-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org
Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
http://www.chillingeffects.org/