Re: Conflict resolution?

[Christopher Ambler <chris@iodesign.com>]

>>The important idea is that *all* iTLD delegations from the IANA (or
>>whoever) are non-exclusive.  This would get us away from the corrosive
>>idea that iTLDs are "hot properties".

> I'd just like to strongly support what Kent has said here -- it would
> seem to me that a large majority of the "discussions" over the
> creation of new domains could be resolved by simply making the
> following statement:

> _ALL_ top level domains _MUST_ be shared

I must disagree in the strongest possible terms. Our business plan, at the
least, is based on the commercial viability of the .WEB property, for which
IANA accepted an application pending completion of procedure. While we may
argue the technical legalities of promises made, the bottom line is that
mandating all TLDs to be shared is unfair for two very good reasons:

1. NSI retains exclusive use of .COM, .NET and .ORG through 1998, and even
  after that point, has had an unfair trade advantage in having exclusive
  use of them to date. Perhaps, if this procedure had been put in place
  over a year ago, rather than letting the current IANA TLD applications
  sit, things would be different. Now, it's just too late. I'm sorry if
  this business aspect goes against the personal worldviews of some of
  the participants here, but the cold hard fact is that this is now a
  situation in which large amounts of money are in the balance.

2. IANA has accepted applications for TLDs, and has stated publically that
  prior use should be a deciding factor, as well as making a number of
  statements and promises that must be kept. This seems to be quite a
  point of contention, however.

I believe that sharing an iTLD should be OPTIONAL, and not mandated for,
at least, these two reasons.


--
Christopher Ambler
President, Image Online Design, Inc.