[At-Large] Thoughts on Delaying New gTLDs

[Bret Fausett]

 > The idea that there are tiny language groups hanging around saying  
"oh,
 > if only we had a TLD then we would do all sorts of Internet stuff" is
 > rather implausible.

I'm not sure what you mean by "tiny language groups," but I had in  
mind languages like Chinese. And I don't think anyone claims that TLDs  
enable Internet access or the creation of Internet content, but they  
may enable identity and branding and ease of communication, for IDNs.

 > new TLDs may exist mostly to shake down existing registrants who'd  
want
 > defensive registrations in new domains.

Every executive at a registry or prospective registry I know thinks  
defensive registrations are one of the worst things for their  
business, because they tie up quality names in the hands of people who  
don't use them or simply redirect them to the .COM. It is awful  
advertising for your namespace if most instances of it redirect to  
a .COM. Believe it or not, the goal is *not* to sell to the  
existing .COM registrants. If I am .WEB or .INFO or something, I'd  
much rather have the Idaho Butter Manufacturers actually use IBM.WEB  
than let International Business Machines register it defensively.

 > Experience shows that ICANN is phenomenally distractable.

No doubt. Which is why new gTLDs was a goal set out in the White  
Paper, tested in 2000, with an evaluation to follow, and only now  
getting near the finish line now.

        -- Bret