|
Bruce,
thank you for your comments on the gTLD report. I
understand that you made clear that the content of these comments are done
by you in your capacity as registrar's representative.
As chairman of the gTLDs committee, I support the change
regarding the description of the objective criteria for expansion. You
suggest these should be the subject for a future PDP. I agree. The committee has
no intent to circumvent a PDP. It was just doing what was asked of it.
I am however concerned about the reduction in these
example criteria from 8 to 3. Specifically, let me comment on your suggested
deletions:
1. Deletion - "Future expansion should increase the
level of competition". You suggest that any extra name will
automatically increase competition and therefore this criteria is unnecessary.
This seems to mix the idea of choice and competition. Competition is a function
on the offering and the supplier.
2. Deletion "names should be for commercial and
non-commercial purposes". You say this is a redundant.
Perhaps it is but given the oft expressed concern of the non-commercial
constituency that their interests may be left out, it seems wise sometimes
to state the obvious.
3. Deletion "Future names should add value to the
namespace" . I am surprised about this deletion
as it is one of the Lynn criteria which were explicitly supported in
the Registrars paper. Are you saying that future names may well add NO value to
the namespace?
4. IDNs - the text in the report was supplied
by Jeff Neumann and Cary Carp from the gTLDs constituency after discussion. It
seemed like a useful summary. The change you make about delayed implementation
is a new undiscussed issue. (If there remains concern with the text,
I suggest we simply delete all reference to IDNs).
5.Deletion "differentiation" - you delete
this on the grounds differentiation is achieved if names are not confusingly
similar. These are separate concepts. It also disregards an important section of
discussion on the committee. The concept of differentiation is central to the
papers of the BC, IPC and ISPs. Support from "segmentation" was given
in discussion by a member of the Registrars. It was in the Lynn paper supported
in the Registrars position. The latter half of the original paragraph picked up
the finessing of the ALAC paper regarding differentiation.
The report submitted tried to capture the various sometimes
competing views of participants. But I believe your edits go too far in erasing
this diversity. In my capacity as chairman please find attached a proposed
compromise text (v5) in which I pick up the procedural changes you make
(link to PDP) but try to maintain a fuller list of elements considered by
participants as worthy of inclusion in that PDP. Version 5 also contains the
recent gTLD registries paper.
Philip
|
Attachment:
gTLDS committee conclusions v5.doc
Description: MS-Word document