“You have not tried a free and market process. You have done almost everything else. You have shut the market down completely. You have tried trickling in additions through painful and laborious beauty contests…. However, there is a glimmer of hope…I heard Kleinsin say he saw no technical stability concerns about the addition of ten to 20 new TLDs to the root a year. …It’s clear that these technical concerns go away if we add something in the neighborhood of tens of top level domains per year.”
“I submitted a paper a year ago calling for the annual addition of 40 TLDs. Isn’t this something we could agree to? Something between 10 and 40 a year? This is progress. . . . The one part of this that doesn’t fit into a smooth transition is the board’s involvement in the content of a TLD. My proposal talked about a trademark-oriented dispute resolution process for new TLDs. You can set up a challenge process, and that can deal with a lot of the issues.”
Kleinsin: “From a technical restriction standpoint, I could throw my shoe at you. [milton: you’ve done that] There are a number of policy constraints that keep me from doing that. The ability to do something technically is not a reason to do it.”
We’ve been talking about new TLDs for some time today. It’s 1999! Joe Sims is here. Ken Fockler is here. Where is Chris Ambler?“
(Via Susan Crawford blog.)
but here’s the rub: money, surplus and devaluation. which can be real or imagined. right now some people make good money off of people’s imagination that there is limited domains. it is a constructed market deficit condition, and lots of people who profit want it to stay that way.