Everyone knows that this is the first and maybe the last
chance, they have,to becom the owner of the great new tld.
So i predict that we are going to see.A landrush unlike anything seen befor.With fierce battles between different
Project stakeholders.
Some companies will buy many new TLDs.Better to own to many than to few.
Smart people will investigate the new TLDs potential for earnings and judge if it exceeds the various ICANN fees and Other expenses.
My guess is that most okay-keyword-TLDs will be profitable
and therefor i think we are going to see 1000’s if not 10000’s
of new TLDs.
.stock .oracle .print .company .Airport .BLOG .town .hockey
.Tobacco .tools .business .brokers .hire .logo .peace .date .pool .Bowling .Dolls .dream .game .Boxing .nutrition .bob

Signed by Comet Vouchers

The program is designed to ensure that registrants are not disadvantaged by the possible future collapse of a registry.

A link to the program is available on the front page of the ICANN website. You can go to it directly at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/continuity/.

Kieren

“if it works, get it out there and make changes later”
The problem with this approach is that those who trusted and bought into those extensions that “don’t work” are in deep trouble. There is absolutely no reason to rush and every reason to proceed with caution.

From where we stand, the launch of “full IDNs” has been held back precisely because they are tied into this wonderfully all-encompassing ICANN policy of gTLD expansion.

Why not separate them out? Whilst the need for this general rapid expansion is very debatle, there is absolutely no debate the world needs IDNs, and soon.

thanks,

Back in February, four specific “overarching issues” that the community had pointed at as real concerns were pulled out and highlighted by staff so that the community could focus on finding solutions to them. Timelines were set back, plans were rearranged and the focus adjusted.

What the announcement last week highlighted was that ICANN actively wasn’t going full speed ahead. In fact, the usual run of events – where documents are revised in full for each new meeting – was purposefully stepped away from.

Rather than have a third version of the guidebook, the Sydney meeting will focus on the overarching issues and then those solutions will be pulled into a third version.

So, yes, I agree that if there is a large section of the community unhappy with a particular element then we do need to revisit it and come to a solution – and I think events have shown that ICANN as an organization is doing precisely that.

Of course there is a bigger, wider issue of culture here. ICANN was borne out of the technical community – the people that designed and built the Internet. And a core philosophy of that group is the idea of “rough consensus and running code” – which could also be translated as “if it works, get it out there and make changes later”. It is that approach that has made the Internet what it is today.

On the other side is the governmental approach which likes to have everything agreed to, considered, discussed and nailed down before it moves forward. This is a much more formal approach that has its advantages in that it is less messy but on the flipside it takes much, much longer. And with the pace of the Internet as it is, it is not suitable for making policy for the domain name system.

So ICANN is between the two – but with both sides intricately involved in its decision-making processes. So, again, it’s noisy. But it does work.

Kieren

So it is a relatively small group. And consequently, the community feedback process is actually instructive, and obviously necessary (in retrospect) to help ICANN clearly see all angles. Kieren, you write:

“… your argument that staff are somehow to blame for not having uncovered them doesn’t hold water.”

To this I will agree. Perhaps it’s not realistic to expect ICANN staff to recognize the presence of certain inevitable conflicts. But, once ICANN have been properly informed, and their attention raised, then it is incumbent upon ICANN to look closely at the problems which have been exposed. And to craft solutions supported BY THE MAJORITY before moving forward.

To not fulfill this “majority consensus” means that a few from within ICANN have pre-empted the entire process in lieu of fulfilling their own personal agenda. And have made a mockery of the public input process.

I believe this is where ICANN “individuals” become immediately more important to the outcome of decisions. With projected problems now raised by a majority, for ICANN’s enlightenment, ICANN must abandon any false timelines that were initially constructed without the benefit of all relevant facts.

The guidebook for example. The guidebook is an attempt to eradicate certain gTLD problems highlighted by the larger internet community. It is ICANN’s attempt to devise and implement needed fixes. However, all of the input into the guidebook and all the collective examination of gTLD issues, is but a a start. It is obvious that ICANN needed more input well into their plan to release unlimited tld’s. That there was little opposition in the early going is really a moot point. In that the myriad of problems now raised are real, consequential on a large scale, and will require thorough solutions.

If it takes ICANN 6 months, or 6 years, to fully eradicate the real hurdles, then that’s what it will take. Again, new tld’s do not have to happen. And the floodgate, unlimited approach to which ICANN is married seems unnecessary and contrived with no substantial rationale attached to it.

Guidebook or not, timeline or not, preconceived desires of a select few ICANN visionaries or not, the new gTLD proposal cannot be allowed to be blindly pushed forward … until the serious issues are comprehensively corrected.

To me this is a very common sense approach. Even irrefutable logic. Until ICANN have addressed & corrected the identified gTLD problems, to the public’s satisfaction, nothing can move forward. It would make no sense to request the community’s collective input/wisdom, receive it, and and then drive forward anyway with a tld proposal that is both optional and fraught with potential complications.

So from my point of view, the new gTLD proposal was a near replay of the biz/info/org contract fiasco of 2006. ICANN made errors of omission in that situation – that were ultimately corrected only through Herculean efforts of domainers and the internet community.

ICANN is under scrutiny right now because public trust has been burned before. There is precedent for being hypercritical and watchful of ICANN. The way in which you interact with the community over the new gTLD issue will be very telling.

We have a responsibility to offer you measured criticism and concern, that is thoughtful and reality-based. ICANN have a responsibility to tune in very carefully to the stated concerns of stakeholders. And to honor the will of the majority over any internally driven politics at ICANN.

No one at ICANN should have the power, or incentive, to drive the new gTLD proposal forward … until all its issues are corrected to the satisfaction of the public. The public is ICANN’s permission slip.