[At-Large] Fwd: [] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Wed Dec 9 22:17:21 UTC 2015

On 09-Dec-15 12:38, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20151204_security_firm_predicts_unprecedented_series_of_new_gtld_failures/
> Good evening. Did the WG see this coming?

The gTLD group that made the current set of recommendations (many of
which were disregarded)?
Yes, it did.
And it realized that as with all products people come to rely on, some
survive and some don't.
This is the way it should be with products.

I hated it when the store I bought most of my clothing came from shut
But I am learning to cope with it.  Found another store, in fact more
than one.

Likewise both people and even businesses can learn to cope.
Web sites can be moved, what's the big deal as long as there is time to
take care of it?

The safe bet will still be an incumbent, those who can tolerate more
risk will have greater choice.
In time there will be other successful registries, especially those from
the portfolio applicants who can afford to carry an unsuccessful name,
and those will be added to the list of available names for people who
cannot tolerate risk.

I do not understand this wringing of hands over the fact that some of
the flowers that bloom die. Everything is temporary, we should be used
to it.  And some of those names will be picked up by those registries
who have a better idea for how to market them.  I think EBERO was good
idea to give TLDs that might be picked up a chance and to give people
time to move if not.  But expectations of eternal availability for TLDs
seems silly to me.

Do you think that guarantees should be available for any subsequent TLDs?


This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

More information about the At-Large mailing list