[At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista
Carlos Raul Gutierrez
carlosraul at gutierrez.se
Mon Jul 16 08:23:01 UTC 2018
The only data the CCT RT found at it's inception, was the first round of a (very expensive) qualitative survey. And even that one had to be adapted for the wonderful round.
In fact, many initial recommensations of the CCT RT were to ask for reasonable quantitative market data series. Very much aligned with the desire to make ICANN a data driven organization.
We all are on the sidelines expecting good hard market (wholesale and retail) data and the output of so many other efforts and new job descriptions that continue to accumulate.
On July 15, 2018 2:35:24 PM GMT+02:00, h.raiche at internode.on.net wrote:
>Agree with both John and Christopher.
>The reports on Competition, Consumer choice and Trust was supposed to
>give us a good picture on those aspects of the outcomes of the new
>gTLD program and, so some extend, there are some answers, but there
>are also a lot of blanks. And yes, it would be good to see a final
>analysis of the new gTLDs.
>But then ALAC has, for some time, said we would like to see final
>results of the first round before anything more happens.....
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "mail at christopherwilkinson.eu CW"
>To:"At-Large Worldwide" , "John Laprise"
>Sent:Sat, 14 Jul 2018 20:59:45 +0200 (CEST)
>Subject:Re: [At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning
> Dear John:
> Thankyou. In so far as your feelings about the new gTLDs mirror those
>of others, I agree. However, as a 'facts-based' economist I would
>really like to see a statistical report from ICANN about the results,
>business and otherwise, of the 2012 programme.
>It is not reassuring that GNSO is going so far down the road towards
>the 'next round' in the absence of a serious appraisal of the results
>of the previous round.
>> I've seen no evidence to date that new gTLD usage is approaching
>that of legacy gTLDs or ccTLDs nor evidence that this is likely to
> Well, depending on your definition of the 'legacy', with one major
> Best regards
> cw at christopherwilkinson.eu El 14 de julio de 2018 a las 16:08 John
>My two cents:
> The failure if new gTLDs is only a concern to ICANN and at large to
>the extent that it negatively impacts the security and stability (S&S)
>of the internet. A minority of end users are interested in acquiring a
>new gTLD and for them, we want to make the process simple and
>straightforward while not endangering S&S.
> I've seen no evidence to date that new gTLD usage is approaching that
>of legacy gTLDs or ccTLDs nor evidence that this is likely to change.
>New gTLDs are the narrow tip of the TLD long tail distribution. End
>user trust/habit will likely continue to preference more well
>established (older) TLDs rather than new ones. Their likely failure
>and aggregation if anything should be anticipated. If anything, ICANN
>should have recourse to reclaim new gTLDs that are acquired but lie
>fallow and go unused (owner of new gTLD fails to execute their
>business plan) and make them available to others. ICANN should
>discourage new gTLD squatting.
> The failure of new gTLDs for business reasons is frankly not ICANN's
>or at large's concern. In this sense ICANN needn't gave rounds for new
>gTLDs but rather have an ongoing process that enables new gTLD
>granting/creation in an ongoing basis along with evaluation if those
>granted to determine their utilization. I'd throw open the doors with
>the admonition that new gTLDs aren't guaranteed to
>At-Large mailing list
>At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the At-Large