In connection with the new TLD discussions, here is an interesting post from Ross Rader, forwarded here with permission:

>>>> [log in to unmask] 1/6/2006 11:27 AM >>>
> 
> The category of TLDs known as "Sponsored" have lead to the launch of 
> some interesting TLDs that should be continued, but without the 
> wrong-headed regulatory constraints that stems from being a Sponsored 
> TLD. The  entire policy creates so much overhead for these new 
> registries that they spend more time complying than they do competing 
> and innovating. Somewhere along the way, somebody decided that the 
> policies surrounding Chartered and Unchartered TLDs like .edu and .com 
> were inappropriate and foisted these duplicative and onerous new 
> classifications on us. The community should take the opportunity with 
> this new policy development process to dismantle these ill-conceived 
> policies, simplify the management and classification structures and 
> greatly ease the policy and compliance burden imposed on these new 
> competitors to the existing monopolies. Without a significantly 
> liberalized approach to namespace expansion, and the operational rules 
> associated with ongoing TLD management, we will continue to suffer under 
> the rule of a system managed to the benefit of a precious few.
> 
> This doesn't mean that .jobs, etc. should go away (or that .xxx should 
> be turned away) - it just means that applicants and operators shouldn't 
> be subjected to such an onerous and meaningless set of rules. If someone 
> wants to run .jobs, they should be able to apply to operate it without 
> being required to implement a set of structures that essentially 
> duplicates (badly) ICANN's policy making process.
> 
> I disagree with Bret on this point - slightly. TLDs for smaller 
> communities are as valuable as TLDs for larger communities. What is 
> wrong is the waste of staff resources. That doesn't come from the TLDs 
> themselves, but from the diligence required to check out whether or not 
> the applicant has created a substantive policy development structure for 
> the TLD. Pretty silly to have one policy development structure for each 
> TLD when we've already got one with ICANN. If this isn't part of ICANN's 
> function, then what is? Each of the applicants should solely be required 
> to set forth a charter and operate under that charter. No one has 
> demonstrated any compelling reasons for them each to adopt a separate 
> system of registrar accreditation, transfer of ownership rules, protocol 
> interfaces, management policies and so on.
> 
> -ross
>