ICANN not sure there should be new tlds?

[Richard J. Sexton]

To: ip-s...@majordomo.pobox.com
From: Dave Farber <far...@cis.upenn.edu>
Subject: IP: Re: What is ICANN, really? (a test coming up)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: owner-i...@admin.listbox.com
Precedence: list
Reply-To: far...@cis.upenn.edu

>To: far...@cis.upenn.edu
>From: edy...@edventure.com (Esther Dyson)
>
>
>There is no test for some time, because first we (ICANN as an extended
>organization and then its board in ratifying consensus) have to figure out
>whether and how there should be new gTLDs at all. So this first test is
>simply whether we follow our own rules and move forward with creating a
>general policy, or whether we could be swayed by political-correctness
>arguments into doing something arbitrary.
>
>esther

--
Richard Sexton | ric...@tangled.web | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone
http://killifish.vrx.net http://www.mbz.org http://www.dnso.com
Bannockburn, Ontario, Canada, 70 & 72 280SE, 83 300SD +1 (613) 473-1719

[Jim Kingdon]

>There is no test for some time, because first we (ICANN as an extended
>organization and then its board in ratifying consensus) have to figure out
>whether and how there should be new gTLDs at all.

Shrug. This doesn't strike me as news. Furthermore, it isn't
completely clear to me that we (tinw) *want* ICANN to be creating new
gTLDs. I mean, are they going to put in policies for UDRP and
registrar accreditation and all kinds of things? If the domains are
run exactly the same way as .com it kind of defeats of the point of
new gTLD's (at least, many of the points).