[registrars] RE: Issue with the "Initial Report on new gTLDs"

[Bhavin.t@directi.com]

Dear Bruce,

Thanks for your response. I resonate with everything you have said below. I
too think it is an issue of the "wording" and its interpretation. The
current wording is extreme, and I do not believe that reflects the intention
of Registrars (atleast myself) and probably even other constituencies.

I believe that there should be measures to ensure that there is no consumer
confusion (such as the .ifno example you have provided), however the
application process should not eliminate potential gTLD competition (for eg
.brochure etc)

My concern is how do we redraft this particular line within the term of
reference so as to take into account this anomaly prior to it being accepted
as a final set of recommendations? The current drafting to me does not sound
like a compromise between the two extremes, but rather leans in the
direction of "no new gTLDs unless the applicant proves the necessity by
differentiation"

Thanks
Bhavin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org 
> [mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
> Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 2:53 PM
> To: Registrars Constituency
> Subject: [registrars] RE: Issue with the "Initial Report on new gTLDs"
> 
> Hello Bhavin, 
> 
> Great to see some well thought out feedback on the draft 
> recommendations.
>  
> With respect to "clearly differentiated domain name space"
>  
> I want to test this with some examples.  From my point of 
> view, in addition to competition, we also need to think about 
> user experience.
>  
> So for me, I think that .ifno as a deliberate misspelling for 
> .info is not a good idea.  It may be OK if ifno clearly meant 
> something to people registering in that space, and the 
> operator made an effort to ensure that registrations were not 
> just attempt to mislead Internet users (ie clearly differentiated).
> 
> But .brochure as an alternative for .info, or .web as an 
> alternative for .com would be fine.  I don't think users 
> would be confused by those strings.
> 
> So for me it is a matter of degree, I think the current 
> wording is probably too restrictive.  There are some in the 
> GNSO that don't want many new TLDs - so the more restrictive 
> the better.  The two extremes in the debate are currently - 
> no new gTLDs unless you can prove somehow in advance that the 
> TLD will be really successful and really wanted by people 
> etc, and as many TLDs as will work - ie open slather like 
> .com in the TLD space.  The current wording is a bit of a 
> compromise between the extremes.  It is interesting to note 
> that many cctlds have decided in recent years to open up 
> registrations at the top level for the TLD (e.g .us, .cn 
> etc), and essentially collapse the DNS hierarchy.
> 
> Speaking personally, I think the concept of avoiding 
> confusion is reasonable, but the current wording appears to 
> be too far towards avoiding competition.
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>