As I absorb the two sides of this discussion (seeing merits in both) I'm
finding myself wanting a more conceptual framework in which to evaluate the
points.

Technically, a domain (TLD) is a domain (2LD) is a domain (3LD).  [Point
Milton]

Administratively, different levels have different agents of control.  It
seems to me that in one sense the *control* is the important thing.  Who
gets to determine who gets to have/control one of these, at whatever level?
[Point Kathy]

If TLDs were ubiquitous (following their being cheap and easy to set up) it
wouldn't matter so much who controlled one string or another because there
would be robust competition and alternatives.  Milton's stance would be
supported by real non-scarcity in TLDs.

In fact, though, even though TLDs are being opened up from near stasis, the
barrier to entry of application fee and the simple fact of finite
administrative bandwidth in processing applications means that there will
still be some degree of meaningful scarcity in the system for the
foreseeable future.

In that case, is there a strategic advantage (economic/political) in
getting the string before someone else?  (Especially if alternatives are
not easy to come by -- like if .book exists, but not all those others like
.bks, etc.)  Seems there could be, and that should be a practical
consideration even if in principle it ought to be moot.

Or it could *all* be moot if no one really uses domains to discover web
sites anymore.  What is the real, practical economic/political value of
controlling a TLD?  [Point Andrew]

Some points here are contingent upon contingencies of current TLD policy --
in principle they could be mooted by a more global change in policy, but
that more global change in policy may not be realistically forthcoming
given the quango-mire that is ICANN.

So, what I'd love to see is a tracing of a dependency-structure for current
and proposed policies.

I'm nowhere near working this out comprehensively myself, but would love to
see those more experienced with the situation in the long term do so, if
possible.

I think Pro/Con can lead us toward this (sort of a case-study discovery
process), but I don't think it will get us all the way there by itself.
Not to discourage it at all, but maybe let's aim further too, yes?

Dan

PS: Regrettably, I can't be present at any forthcoming in-person meetings,
Beijing or otherwise.  But, I can occasionally get to email when I have a
passing opportunity.  Maybe I can offer some questions/comments along the
way as the discussion develops.


--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.



At 12:41 PM +0100 2/26/13, Avri Doria wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I think this is a great idea, and something that would best be done by
>someone who was not partisan on the issue.
>
>Where you offering?
>
>avri
>
>On 26 Feb 2013, at 12:20, Clarinettet wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> May I submit one easy suggestion. Obviously, as every option, there are
>>pros and cons. To adopt a common position, we need to balance the pros
>>and cons. I suggest a worksheet to be created with two columns
>>representing each side's views and vote from there. That way, everyone
>>can validity judge and discuss. It's not very easy to follow discussions
>>on series of emails.
>>
>> Do you agree?
>>
>> Tara Taubman