3 ms·
That absolutely doesn't contradict the point of the post. Yes, a group of authors could argue against .authors. But the process remains opaque, and the point is
by benwerd 14y ago
That absolutely doesn't contradict the point of the post. Yes, a group of authors could argue against .authors. But the process remains opaque, and the point is that the onus is on an authors group to make that objection, rather than ICANN making either a more open/market-like or more fair domain allocation process to begin with.
- crazydoggers 14y agoWhat process would you recommend? The process was pretty open market. Anyone was able to apply for a gTLD. Running a registry is not cheap or simple. If the price for application was lower, every Tom Dick and Harry would have been applying, and then they'd have to wade through thousands of applications per tld. So who do you propose is allocated and gets to runs the ".author" tld?
- justincormack 14y agoThere does not seem to be any requirement to say how the registrar will work, ie if it is private, public or restricted to certain categories. I don't mind public tlds and some restrictions (like .book is for books but open for registration to anyone). And fully private ones if they are company names like .Samsung are perhaps OK by me if the words are not generuc. But we don't know what .book or .love will be yet.