[At-Large] [GTLD-WG] my submissions to new gTLD statement

[Christopher Wilkinson]

Good morning:

I agree generally with the line that Patrick has outlined in his last 
two postings.
I have been associated with the process of creating new TLDs for more 
than ten years, and have come to the conclusion that the time and cost 
of the preparatory work - voluntary or otherwise - should not be written 
off at the final stage.

There will indeed be some frivolous applications and some mistakes, 
which the ICANN selection process should be designed to minimise.

That being said, from a global point of view, I would still urge ALAC to 
give priority to IDN TLDs, for cultural and linguistic environments 
which are presently not served atall by the DNS.

Regards to you all, and best wishes for 2009

Christopher Wilkinson.

----------------------------

Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 00:19:02 -0800 (PST), "Bill Silverstein"
> <icann-list at sorehands.com> wrote:
>   
>>> While I agree it would be best to suspend the process until the concerns
>>> are addressed, I think we should keep in mind that several potential new
>>> registries have already invested a lot of time, energy and money for a
>>> long time in this saga.
>>>       
>> I was under the impression that application process for the new tlds have
>> not been started. Maybe I am mistaken?
>>     
>
> As you may know, this whole new gTLD process started many years ago. There
> have been tons of documents, meetings, etc to finally come up with this
> Applicant's guide. Many potential new entrants participated in the whole
> process over the last 3 years. This does have a cost. Suggesting that the
> process has not started because the final RFP is not officially published
> is dismissing one of the most important parts of the work, which is the
> preparation of the RFP.
>
>   
>>> By asking to suspend the process, we risk killing innovation and we play
>>> the game of the incumbents.
>>>       
>> What about the the internet users, the public? Or do we protect the
>> interests of a few people who jumped the gun on spending money for a
>> process that has not been finalized?
>>     
>
> I think it is the best interest of the public to have alternatives to the
> incumbent registry operators. 
>
> Patrick
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
>