The main difference in what I propose from what has been suggested
by Paul H. and John L. are these:
- I propose the allocation of "slots" rather than names - it being
none of ICANN's business what character string is selected as the name
for the slot, as long as it is unique - ICANN simply is not an
appropriate body to enact, much less enforce a home-brew law of
trademark over domain names.
- I don't require that the applicant have worldwide facilities,
rather they should merely have what is required to meet the
anticipated demand. (I realize that setting up a worldwide ring of
servers isn't really that expensive, something less than perhaps
$100,000 per server to cover hardware, installation, a years worth of
bandwidth, etc, but if a new TLD anticipates only a few thousand
queries a day then why should it have to pay to build an
infrastructure on par with that supporting .com?)
My own comments on how to allocate new TLDs is found in my blog entry of Jan 26, 2006 - How Top Level Domains (TLDs) Should Be Allocated
The main difference in what I propose from what has been suggested by Paul H. and John L. are these:
- I propose the allocation of "slots" rather than names - it being none of ICANN's business what character string is selected as the name for the slot, as long as it is unique - ICANN simply is not an appropriate body to enact, much less enforce a home-brew law of trademark over domain names.
- I don't require that the applicant have worldwide facilities, rather they should merely have what is required to meet the anticipated demand. (I realize that setting up a worldwide ring of servers isn't really that expensive, something less than perhaps $100,000 per server to cover hardware, installation, a years worth of bandwidth, etc, but if a new TLD anticipates only a few thousand queries a day then why should it have to pay to build an infrastructure on par with that supporting .com?)
Anyway, take a look at my note How Top Level Domains (TLDs) Should Be Allocated