Milton:
Great, glad the comments made sense. Mawaki, I think you will be
taking our full range of comments and making them into a final report, is that
right? Thank you!
The reason we send multiple people to ICANN conferences is so that we can
talk and listen to the widest discussions possible. There were people at
the last ICANN conference specifically sent by their companies to pursue single
letter top level domains. The strategy they and the Business Constituency
will be pursuing (I am led to believe) is that only the sponsored and
"super-sponsored domain names" should be allowed, not the general opening up of
general gTLDs. On the one hand, they will want .AOL (just an example, I
have not seen the AOL people at ICANN); on the other hand, they don't want a
.WEB or .OPEN because it will conflict with their trademarks.
So the strategy for us, I think, is to make it very clear to them that we
will block theirs until they let us have ours. Open up the whole gTLD
system (as you, Milton, propose) and all will be well. Open up only little
corners for the biggest companies in the world, and we will oppose.
That's my thought and proposal for NCUC.
As for the preamble, the deletion was inadvertent. It is good. I like
the idea of making it an appendix, or better, a "concluding NCUC note."
Regards, Kathy
>We
should warn the GNSO Council about [snip] the new push from
>them to
allow only "one-company" top level domains --
> .DISNEY and .O
(Overstock.com) are being discussed.
On .O, I think you are
incorrect, Overstock wants "o.com," not .o as a TLD. I know of no initiative
to add one-letter TLDs.
On .disney, I see nothing wrong with a
company-specific TLD per se. In fact, I think it could be a progressive step
forward, further decentralizing power over DNS, and making it clear to big
companies that if they want domain names to be controlled in a specific way
they can get their own domains and run them that way instead of trying to
regulate the way the rest of us use DNS. Aside from that, why should
policy mandate that a company such as .aol, which has 10 million email
addresses, must be dependent on an external registry (.com) for such a
fundametnal part of their service? Why shouldn't they be allowed to
self-provision?
>(so let's delete the paragraphs about
ccTLDs).
You're absolutely correct about this!
One other point:
you (perhaps correctly) eliminated the preamble about our prior policy votes
on this. While I agree that it reads smoother without that, and that it
appears to conform better to the request for comments, I also think it is very
important to remind everyone, as often as possible, that this debate has been
going on for years, and that almost every time we consider it the majority
view is that there should be some new TLDs. Perhaps we could add an appendix
to that effect