Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Government Politics

ICANN Responds To gTLD Plan Comments 119

Posted by kdawson
from the didn't-like-it-huh dept.
angry tapir writes "ICANN has delayed its plans to sell new generic top-level domains while responding to public comments about the controversial proposal. The organization has released a 154-page document detailing and analyzing the hundreds of comments (PDF) it has received about its gTLD plan. In response to several concerns brought up by the public and companies in the Internet industry, ICANN has moved out the projected timeline for taking applications for new gTLDs from September to December."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ICANN Responds To gTLD Plan Comments

Comments Filter:
  • by smooth wombat (796938) on Friday February 20, 2009 @02:19PM (#26932415) Homepage Journal
    a 154-page document detailing and analyzing the hundreds of comments (PDF)

    It's a trap [slashdot.org]!
  • by winkydink (650484) * <sv.dude@gmail.com> on Friday February 20, 2009 @02:23PM (#26932471) Homepage Journal

    Further balkanization of gTLD's does nothing for the end user. It will be a great stream of new revenue for registrars though.

    ICANN has become nothing more than a pawn of domain registrars. Read the meeting minutes and see for yourself.

    • Sure looks like it.
      .cola? Are they kidding?
      • .cola domain names would be an invaluable tool to reach our core target audience who make cola soft drinks a defining part of their unique life experiences!

        In addition, .diet-cola, .citrus, .diet-citrus, .max, .diet-max, .one, .diet-cola, .caffeine-free, .diet-caffeine-free, .wildcherry, .diet-wildcherry, .vanilla, .diet-vanilla-caffeine-free-wildcherry and other domain names will help grow our brand net out from just our core audience.

        • by Ihmhi (1206036)

          Jokes aside, wouldn't this kinda make the Internet go more the way of Usenet?

          Instead of alt.cherrycoke you'd have www.cherry.coke

          I don't see how it's that bad of a thing. Any company that worries about their brand is going to buy every related brand under the sun. So long as the approval process is very rigorous I don't have such a big problem with it.

          This opens up the possibility for a new industry, even - gTLD agents:

          1) Collect a set of people with the same gTLD in mind - for example, let's say the domain

          • You're failing to ask a crucial question here: why do we insist in continuing to use domain names as an end-user content addressing mechanism? Why not use web directories, search engines, bookmarks and portals instead?

            There are technical reasons for DNS as part of the low-level plumbing of the internet, certainly, but are there really any good reasons for a non-technical user to be aware of it?

            • There are technical reasons for DNS as part of the low-level plumbing of the internet, certainly, but are there really any good reasons for a non-technical user to be aware of it?

              Of course there are. It gives you a specific and presumably permanent location that Person or Company X may always be found at.

              Saying that search or directories can somehow replace this is like saying we could business addresses with the yellow pages.

              • by 1u3hr (530656)
                Of course there are. It gives you a specific and presumably permanent location that Person or Company X may always be found at.

                We have an effectively infinite number of "specific and presumably permanent locations" NOW. Adding an indefinite number of TLDs to that does not give you any advantage over the current "limited" number of TLDs. But I can think of a lot of confusion and malicious use that could be made of confusingly similar TLDs.

          • by 1u3hr (530656)
            I don't see how it's that bad of a thing. Any company that worries about their brand is going to buy every related brand under the sun. So long as the approval process is very rigorous I don't have such a big problem with it.

            If you had a brand name you wanted to protect and had to spend tens of thousands of dollars to register all these extra domain names you don't want and will never use, just to prevent squatters or spammers or phishers taking them, you might.

            What GOOD does it do anyone, aside from the

      • Obviously to document anything related to Cost of Living Adjustments? Important in today's economy, no?

        Or are you aware of a different type of cola?

    • It is a disgusting thing to do to the Internet, to remove the last semblance of hierarchy and structure in the naming system. It's crap like this that makes me wonder how long it will be before entire contenents are on separate competing DNS roots, fracturing the net as we know it.

      • It is a disgusting thing to do to the Internet, to remove the last semblance of hierarchy and structure in the naming system.

        This claim makes no sense. DNS is just as hierarchical under the traditional and the gTLD model.

        The hierarchy of domain names is really about delegation of authority for assigning IP addresses for symbolic names. The folks who manage the .edu domain have the authority to assign symbolic hostnames that end in .edu, and additionally, to delegate assignments in subdomains thereof to

        • What would be so horrible about registering entities under a path to the root that indicated something meaningful about that site's purpose and charter?

          - Companies registering domain names based on their existing trademarked names in the jurisdictions where they're represented. Think .co.uk, but with an actual restriction on who can register what.
          - Reserving a name (again under the appropriate jurisdiction) for non-profit organizations, instead of allowing any Tom, Dick, and Harry to have a .org.
          - Giving ba

      • It is a disgusting thing to do to the Internet, to remove the last semblance of hierarchy and structure in the naming system

        What? This is adding more structure, if done right. Which imparts more structure, to group all animals in a flat bucket called 'animals' (.com) or to pull them out into 'sponges', 'worms', 'molluscs', 'insects', 'chordates', etc (new TLD's)?

        Granted, it's not a multi-level hierarchy, but then again, when was the last time you used the old Yahoo! directory? Ontological organization ha

        • What? This is adding more structure, if done right. Which imparts more structure, to group all animals in a flat bucket called 'animals' (.com) or to pull them out into 'sponges', 'worms', 'molluscs', 'insects', 'chordates', etc (new TLD's)?

          But what if I wanted to classify animals by color, instead of taxon?

          The big problem with centralized hierarchical organizational schemas is that the same domain of things can be classified orthogonally according to different criteria, and different classifications are a

          • So you will never be able to choose a "correct" one true classification.

            Sure, and nothing prevents registering Slashdot.blue and Slashdot.black. If the TLD's are wide, it can be more of tagging than classification.

            • Ug! That's exactly what we DON'T want in DNS! I thought DNS was supposed to convey some notion of authority about its records.

              Much more importantly, why the hell would we willingly step into a situation where we're promoting the metaphor of tagging as a means to organize names, when we don't actually have the freedom (libre) to apply tags in a free (gratis) and easy manner? I'm referring to the fact that registrants would be hemorrhaging money to registrars on a per-tag basis, and for the top level, that wo

              • I'm referring to the fact that registrants would be hemorrhaging money to registrars on a per-tag basis, and for the top level, that would be quite a steep and ludicrous fee.

                Sure, if it's limited. If it's unlimited then it gets reasonable, nobody can afford to register 'everything' then.

                The point of broad TLD's is only to serve as disambiguation, the way we have, say trademark categories. So, if I run McGonigle's Furniture Repair, I might want mcgonigle.furniture and perhaps mcgonigle.antiques. I have no

                • Ah, but who controls the hypothetical and absurdly generic TLD name "furniture"? How on Earth is it fair to allow some middleman to usurp a piece of the TLD space, so that they have influence or even monopoly control over who in the industry is allowed to play?

                  Wireless telecommunications companies have created the disgustingly artificial space of commercial texting numbers so that they could grow and culture an industry of crap on your cellphone, and reap a sizable share of the profits. It's a closed networ

          • Why is no organization better than one organization? Especially when that one organization is authoritative for some legitimate purpose? It's like (bad analogy time!) saying that because you can create different views over a table depending on your needs, you might as well just eliminate the primary key on the actual table. (Indexing and all that crap notwithstanding, the point is why prefer anarchy to order.)

        • Huh? I don't understand your argument at all. How is flattening a hierarchy adding more structure, compared with separating out its contents into categories based on their nature? Doesn't your example actually serve as an exact counterexample? How is it more structured to have "sponges", "worms", "trees", "grass", etc., as single-level names, as opposed to "sponges.animals", "worms.animals", "trees.plants", "grass.plants"?

          Ontological organization has been voted off the Internet, for better or worse./blockqu

          • Whoops, as you can see, I screwed up the blockquote. Lot of good that preview function does; it just conditioned me to be even less attentive.

          • Huh? I don't understand your argument at all. How is flattening a hierarchy adding more structure, compared with separating out its contents into categories based on their nature? Doesn't your example actually serve as an exact counterexample? How is it more structured to have "sponges", "worms", "trees", "grass", etc., as single-level names, as opposed to "sponges.animals", "worms.animals", "trees.plants", "grass.plants"?

            We might be agreeing and not communicating, I'm not sure. To whit: you can't have spo

            • And what's stopping someone from adding "trees." and "grass." as top levels as well as "trees.plants." and "trees.plants.greenstuff." ?

              Additional top-level domains will both allow intelligent domain operators to organize their data better and make life more confusing and less predictable for users.

              • Additional top-level domains will both allow intelligent domain operators to organize their data better and make life more confusing and less predictable for users.

                True, and since DNS was never intended to be used by users, this might be OK. Most people I know effectively use Google, via start page or searchbar for their navigation. Some even type DNS-based locations directly into the Google search box and click the link. That one I don't get - maybe because the Google search box grabs cursor focus (but

                • I told a user to visit a website, say "ford.com" and watched them type "Google" into their MSN homepage, then type "ford.com" into the Google search, then click the first result.

              • Allowing anyone to register TLDs in a fairly non-restricted manner is rubbish because it undermines hierarchy and permits exactly that kind of pointless redundancy. If on the other hand no one but sovereign nations had control of a TLD, there might be a bit more order in the namespace. I'm not suggesting there wouldn't still be significant hurdles, I'm just saying it would be less of an embarrassment. I'm sick of gimicks in place of sound structure.

            • Yes, I agree that .com's meaning has been changed and diluted by the 90s, to the point that it no longer represents what it originally was supposed to, contributing to end user confusion and unnecessary defensive name grabbing. But I don't see how giving everyone their own TLD is a step up.

              The closer to the root a name is, the more compelling the taxonomical justification for its existence should be. At the closest level is the root itself, then the "top" level of country jurisdictions, then categories spec

    • It will be a great stream of new revenue for registrars though.

      Will it, really? I mean, if any organization can register a TLD and sell subdomains within it, that would drastically increase the supply of domain names. The prices of domains should go down, in that case, since if you can't get joe-blow.tld1 you could get joe-blow.tld2.

      Of course, this is assuming that the domain registrars don't form a cartel. But the point is that generic TLDs aren't a big deal; a cartel of domain registrars is.

      • Will it, really? I mean, if any organization can register a TLD and sell subdomains within it, that would drastically increase the supply of domain names.

        But, um... what happens when we run out of IPv4 addresses? Chaos, I tell you!

      • by Aluvus (691449)

        Because major multinational Joe-Blow, Inc., is not comfortable buying joe-blow.tld1 and letting whoever wants to buy joe-blow.tld2, which they could use in a way that damages Joe-Blow's reputation. There is some legal recourse to that, depending on the specifics, but that takes time and is anything but guaranteed. Why risk it? So most large companies (and indeed, many smaller companies) just buy a bunch of permutations of their domain name, including different TLDs and common misspellings. They will gen

    • by Sloppy (14984)

      Further balkanization of gTLD's does nothing for the end user.

      Ok, but does it harm the end user?

      I don't think it does. I put this in the "useless but also harmless" category.

    • Further balkanization of gTLD's does nothing for the end user.

      It has the potential to make domain names shorter, that's a good thing.

      Every new motion picture has the domain now, SomeSillySobStoryTHEMOVIE.COM. This is silly.

      SomeSillySobStory.movie would be much more sensible. How does that harm me? I rather like that what's left of Network Solutions will have less of a monopoly power.

      • by smoker2 (750216)
        I'm sorry but those (max)4 characters are not enough to make me want to ditch the current working system. All this is, is dilution of the namespace, in order to make more money (as a registrar). the prices won't go down but there will be more work for DNS, which you may note is already under strain.
        • the prices won't go down...

          Um.
          The prices *should* be next to nothing. I manage my own little corner of the Internet. It's *VERY* easy to add subdomains. Hell, it's even scriptable for fully hands-off management!

      • by Mozk (844858)

        Why not just SomeSillySobStory? You don't necessarily need a TLD suffix.

        • Why not just SomeSillySobStory? You don't necessarily need a TLD suffix.

          I heard on the radio today one of the movies up for an award is called 'Milk'.

          Interestingly, Google's algorithms understand this. DNS can't.

          • by Mozk (844858)

            How would it be different than it is now? For example, with Nissan.com [nissan.com], which is owned by a company that sells computers rather than the Nissan Motor Company. If you use a general name like Milk or one that is used by other people, of course there will be conflicts. Say there are two movies titled Milk. Where would milk.movies go? A hierarchical system like that doesn't help here, unless you have a more complex system with something like milk.2008.movies and milk.otheryear.movies. In any case, you don't jus

            • Ah, I understand now. Thanks for clarifying.

              This is pretty much the same as the old 'Mozilla domain guessing' scheme, right? (type in MilkMovie and it goes to 'www.milkmovie.com' automatically (if milkmovie.local fails).

              They basically achieved that user experience using 'www' and '.com' as technical implementation details. I think they gave it up because search engines wound up giving the users an experience they liked better.

      • The new gTLDs wouldn't make any difference unless they're well-managed and regulated. None of the current gTLDs are, so why believe these would be?

        • The new gTLDs wouldn't make any difference unless they're well-managed and regulated. None of the current gTLDs are, so why believe these would be?

          Oh, I make no pretentions that they would be, but what we currently have is poor management, practically no regulation, and artificial scarcity, so prices remain high while quality is low.

          We can't expect, no matter how hard we'd wish it, to get get good management and good regulation (ICANN is worse than useless but they get the contracts and the revenue anyway).

  • I'm for it! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I, for one, am for it. At the very least it will derail the slimy domain squatters that just sit on every-damn-word-in-the-dictionary-and-combination-thereof.com|net|org

    And I don't want to hear the shit about companies protecting their brand name. It is just about impossible to give your company a name that has not already been used *somewhere* and/or registered as a domain name.

    - Sick of it all

    • by smoker2 (750216)
      How ?
      It does nothing more than allow every fucker with some money to buy them all up AGAIN ! Why don't we expand the TLD space again, (when they need some more money). Fucking consumer !
  • Sigh (Score:5, Funny)

    by oahazmatt (868057) on Friday February 20, 2009 @02:44PM (#26932707) Journal
    And I was so looking forward to registering ".1" so I could realize my dream of having an external URL at 127.0.0.1.
  • This is just a blatant money grab by ICANN. It does nothing for the end user, and nothing for domain owners. Will your life be made better with a .penis extension? It just adds another level of confusion and makes names more difficult to remember. We already have enough dumb TLDs, why do we need infinity more?
    • I stopped remembering phone numbers in about 1992 when I bought my first cellular, I quite literally do not know my own phone number, and I don't even need to when I can bluetooth it around or send via text, so what makes you think we might need to remember domain names? We have bookmarks and a myriad of search engines for that.

      Money grab? Like ICANN is not all that right now? As of today there are roughly 200 million registered domain names, that's a lot of money changing hands no matter how you swing it.

  • by surmak (1238244) on Friday February 20, 2009 @03:09PM (#26933045)
    We already have too many gTLDs. What is the difference between foo.com and foo.net? Most likely foo.com got there first, and then foo.net was the second comer. The only reason I can see for allowing new top-level domains is to provide a reference to organizations that already exist within another globally unique registry of some sort.

    The best example of such a registry I can think of is the callsign of a radio station. These are globally unique (the first letter or two identified the country, and the rest is assigned by the radio regulatory authority of that country (in the US, the FCC). Thus, I could see adding a TLD .radio, which would be limited to callsigns as the second level domain. (e.g. wkrp.radio)

    Other such global registries could include UPC or ISBN prefixes. PCI, USB or ethernet manufacturer IDs, or the like are also globally unique ID's and may be worth putting into DNS.

    • We already have too many gTLDs. What is the difference between foo.com and foo.net? Most likely foo.com got there first, and then foo.net was the second comer.

      I'm not sure that's a sign that we have too many, but perhaps rather that the attempt at organizing these things has been a failure so far. Personally, I'd like to see the whole thing reevaluated, figuring out what the goals of the organization are, and then figuring out what organization is likely to achieve those goals based on the reality of the Internet today (i.e. spammers, phishing, fraud, domain squatting).

      • I'm not sure that's a sign that we have too many, but perhaps rather that the attempt at organizing these things has been a failure so far. Personally, I'd like to see the whole thing reevaluated, figuring out what the goals of the organization are, and then figuring out what organization is likely to achieve those goals based on the reality of the Internet today (i.e. spammers, phishing, fraud, domain squatting).

        But the point of DNS isn't to "organize" the content of the net. The point of DNS is to delega

        • I think you're misunderstanding what I'm getting at. The reason we have different TLDs certainly is about organization as well as delegation of authority. If it was only about authority, why bother having .net, .org, .com, .info, and .biz addresses?

          Schools are supposed to have EDU addresses, government organizations are supposed to have GOV. I believe that ORG addresses were supposed to be non-profits, COM were supposed to be for commercial entities, and NET addresses were supposed to be mainly for ISPs

          • I think you're misunderstanding what I'm getting at. The reason we have different TLDs certainly is about organization as well as delegation of authority. If it was only about authority, why bother having .net, .org, .com, .info, and .biz addresses?

            But my larger point is that that use of TLDs is wrong. You will not solve the organization problems with DNS, simply because there is no one universal scheme of classification that you can apply to all sites in al contexts. Different users of the net will need

            • But my larger point is that that use of TLDs is wrong.

              According to who? If it's just according to you, then I wouldn't say it's "wrong". You don't like it, and you don't think it's best. That's fine. But I'm not really "wrong".

              True, but again: why should DNS encode that as part of the domain name? If you want to know what kind of organization you're connecting to, why not just search the web for information about them? Or, why not consult some sort of trusted, non-DNS database that catalogues organizations of that kind?

              If you're not going to use DNS to find and identify anything and instead are only going to use Google, then why bother at all? Why not just stick to IPs? Or if you need a dynamic way of identifying things independently of IPs, why not just issue some other serial number?

              DNS is a naming system. It was built to be treated as hierar

              • If you're not going to use DNS to find and identify anything and instead are only going to use Google, then why bother at all? Why not just stick to IPs? Or if you need a dynamic way of identifying things independently of IPs, why not just issue some other serial number?

                I'm not questioning the value of DNS as a layer of abstraction between high-level protocols like HTTP from low-level protocols like IP and TCP. The ability to change what IP address a request to a symbolic hostname gets sent to is of certai

                • The ability to change what IP address a request to a symbolic hostname gets sent to is of certainly valuable, because a host's IP address is determined by details about routing that are not relevant to a protocol like HTTP

                  Right, so then why not just issue a separate serial number that identifies the host and link based on that? Why bother allocating names in a hierarchical system if not in order to organize?

      • I wouldn't mind more gTLDs, but perhaps it's for the wrong reason that I want them. A ".radio" would be very useful, but just having more gTLDs out there would allow me and others in the same boat a chance to register the domains we want now that the big three (.com, .net, .org) are so crowded. Of course, squatters and competition-adverse companies alike will rush to sweep up domains on new gTLDs, but hey at least I might get a day or two.

    • by hackstraw (262471)

      We already have too many gTLDs. What is the difference between foo.com and foo.net? Most likely foo.com got there first, and then foo.net was the second comer.

      Better yet, what is the difference between slashdot.org and slashdot.com? What about wikipedia.org and wikipedia.com?

      Where I work, we are under a .org TLD. And another person I work with in IT types in wikipedia.com and never notices that the site is wikipedia.org. What about whitehouse.com vs whitehouse.gov? For those that didn't know,whitehouse.com was a porn site or something. What about usps.com or army.com? The government and military have their own TLDs, yet they opt out of using them for the mo

    • by gad_zuki! (70830)

      No, these tlds are helpful. If anything ends with .biz its a scam or not worth visiting. I expect the new influx of vanity tlds will be the same, with someone eventually writing an IE and Firefox extension that blacklists all domains that dont end with .com, .net, org, mil, and the established country/state codes.

    • With only a few gTLDs, you're right - there's no obvious difference between .com and .net. So everyone with a trademark wants to register their trademark in every gTLD, which only reinforces the lack of distinction between them. And so consumers don't really understand what a gTLD is; they think ".com" is part of the "noise" of the URL, like "http://www.". Which, again, becomes a self-fulfilling proposition.

      I don't know if the right number of gTLDs is hundreds or thousands, but the right number is "more t

  • Obviously they have canned this idea - pardon the pun - most likely due to being inundanted by requests for domains like .cheezburger
  • So they took feedback, and then did what with it? They compiled (parts of) it into a PDF. Wow, I'm impressed. Now in response they have moved out the date by a few months; great.

    I can't wait until some shady group in another country buys the .viagra and .software TLDs and self-administers the registrations within them as permitted by the ICANN plans. Once that happens we'll get spam from dirtcheap.viagra and superubercheap.software, which will be for domains that have no readable whois data and ICANN will just shrug their shoulders and say "talk to the registrar" (who themselves won't speak to us).

    Thanks ICANN. I guess the assumption was right, you don't give a damn about feedback after all. As long as you can make a few more bucks on new registrar accreditations (whatever that will mean when you start selling new gTLDs) you're happy, right? And thats really all that matters on the internet.
  • Gated Community TLDs (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RevWaldo (1186281) on Friday February 20, 2009 @03:27PM (#26933337)
    Just a thought experiment. Suppose you set up a TLD - .bob for instance. Users can set up domains for web sites, e-mail, FTP etc. within .bob just like any other domain, but the rules of using it are different from the rest of the web. Such as -

    Web -
    - Only other .bob account holders can access .bob sites. No one else can get in, not even google.
    - .bob sites cannot be accessed anonymously, but .bob sites must guarantee privacy - your usage can't be shared with anyone else.

    E-mail and IM -
    - No anonymous addresses or accounts. .bob e-mail addresses or chat names must be linked to an actual person.
    - .bob users can only send/receive e-mails or IM to other .bob addresses. Nothing outside .bob is allowed in.
    - Spam is not allowed. At all. You spam, you lose your .bob access

    Content -
    - Your .bob account comes with a license with nearly all known media companies. (www.timewarner.bob, for instance.) For a monthly fee you can access any media they have digitized - books, news, film, music, games, software, etc. It's DRMed out the wazoo, of course. All usage is tracked. Violate the terms of use and you lose your .bob access.

    In other words, a fully privatized portion of the internet. A nightmare to some, but to others - "Access to all media? No spam? $39.95 a month? Where do I sign?"

    Other TLDs could set up other ecologies. .ftw might only allow services that are fully encrypted and anonymous, for example.

    Is there anything that would prevent TLD owners from doing this?
    • by vishbar (862440)
      What's preventing then from doing it with an existing subdomain? (bob.com, e.g. www.timewarner.bob.com)
    • by Nethead (1563)

      Because a lot of that depends on reverse DNS. And you can put anything you want for a reverse.

      • by RevWaldo (1186281)
        Rewinding the scenario I spelled out a bit, this wouldn't involve any rewiring of DNS. Basically, if I owned a TLD, could I place contractual obligations on anyone that wanted to create domain names under it?

        We already have TLDs with usage restrictions. .edu, .gov, and .int domains cannot be used for any old web site. Many national domains can only be owned by residents/organizations residing in those countries.

        But these are more of a benign nature. I'm talking about setting up TLDs that work on their
        • by Nethead (1563)

          All of which you could do with a regular page of links that you have 'reviewed.' Sure, if you have your own TLD then you could do all that but you would still have to monitor (robot) those sites to insure that they conform to your AUP. If you did have to pull a domain for an AUP violation then you may have to lawyer-up, even if you are in the right.

    • by rednip (186217)

      Suppose you set up a TLD ...but the rules of using it are different from the rest of the web

      So instead of simply using the DNS to resolve to an IP address, how would you route '.bob'?

    • by Piranhaa (672441)
      You've clearly been hanging around Him [wikimedia.org] too long sir
    • by Sloppy (14984)

      Is there anything that would prevent TLD owners from doing this?

      There's nothing preventing people from doing that right now, without the need of new TLDs. Run whatever protocols and policies that you wish.

    • I fail to see how setting up a set of services with strictly enforced rules is any different from what we already have. What does the arrangement you describe have to do with new top-level domain names? There might be plenty of valid reasons to object to new TLDs but yours doesn't strike me as a reason to object to any new TLD.

  • trademark (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Lord Ender (156273) on Friday February 20, 2009 @03:42PM (#26933527) Homepage

    Even US trademark law does not scale well to the Internet. I can't imagine the disaster GTLDs would be for international trademark disputes. The IP lawyers must be licking their lips at the thought of GTLDs.

  • A number of commenters urged ICANN not to move forward with the new gTLD program because of threats to DNS stability and security, and warned that the new program will create a new wave of malicious activity, including spam and phishing.

    Phishing Hell if they don't do things right, for sure.

    What's the point of this program anyway? Being able to register fancy urls? By paying $185,000 + yearly fees?

  • ...about how to best handle "colliding" gTLDs previously established by alternate roots? I don't see it anywhere in the linked PDF.

    Oh, silly me...Vint Cerf has already waxed majestic about how alternate roots would be "disastrous" to the architecture of the Internet. So I suppose this means ICANN can (pun intended) conveniently ignore the entire issue of alternate roots, even though China has already established an alternate root [theglobeandmail.com], with no sign of the meltdown predicted by Dr. Cerf.

It is not every question that deserves an answer. -- Publilius Syrus

Working...