Hosting a discussion in Beijing would be a great idea. People are eager to debate it so would come to our meeting. What do we need to do to make it happen..? Maria On 27 February 2013 06:14, Dan Krimm <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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 >