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 >