> obviously, there are potential benefits to adding more TLDs, > although the > reason NSI doesn't oppose it has little to do with its > charitable spirit > and more to do with the fact that it will take a long time > for .shop or > .firm to be a true competitive alternative to .com. Maybe it doesn't oppose this because it doesn't want to fight more than one battle at a time and it knows which is more pressing. I think history shows that NSI will easily find a way to delay the introduction of more gTLDs if and when they become likely. I am sure NSI will do this _unless_ they are introduced in a manner that NSI sees as beneficial to itself. Like, maybe NSI will by then feel so confident that it has won the Registrar war that it would see new gTLDs as a huge source of new revenues. Even NSI should be able to see by now that .com will run dry. I think it is dangerous to attribute pure .com defence reasons to all NSI's actions. Since this is the > case, it would be much better for NSI's bottom line for it to > remain the > monopoly provider of .com names, and have to compete with some others > trying to sell some other, less-effectively branded, domain, > than it would > be to have to give up its .com monopoly position (and the > monopoly rents > that come with it). We need some economic reality in this discussion; > whatever else NSI's flaws, it understands where the money is. In any > event, we have asked the DNSO to look at new gTLDs, which are > an important > subject, but a lower priority than opening up .com to competition. You say that adding gTLDs is a lower priority than opening up .com to competition. But on what basis do you say this? We do need some economic reality in this discussion - but is a lawyer the right person to give it? Or, for that matter, is there one person on the ICANN board who has built up and run their own company? Ivan
