CircleID

Comments

Tucows Comments on ICANN Applicant Guidebook

• Comment posted May 22, 2011 10:21 pm PDT — by Richard J Tindal
  Great article Elliot.  I encourage decision makers for the new TLD program to carefully read and think about the ‘paradox of protections’. Critics of the TLD program argue that the new domains, in the hands of scammers and criminals, will…

What ICANN Can Learn from Humpty Dumpty

• Comment posted May 02, 2011 11:33 pm PDT — by Richard J Tindal
  If you leave aside the personal dynamics between GAC and Board, and focus on their substantive requests (i.e. what did they actually asked for) the GAC should be well pleased with ICANN's responsiveness.  Since 2008 GAC has provided approx 120…

A Phased Array Early Warning System

• Comment posted Apr 08, 2011 7:48 pm PDT — by Richard J Tindal
  Hi Guys, This solution seems unnecessarily complex to me.  Also, it's based (as you note) on the EOI concept — which ICANN dropped last year after extensive review.  Isn't the simpler solution to give GAC access to application data as…

ICANN's Governance Conundrum

• Comment posted Dec 04, 2010 5:43 pm PST — by Richard J Tindal
  If your interpretation is correct then ICANN is already in breach of AoC for failing to produce an analysis of costs and benefits of IDN TLDs.  Do you agree? RT

• Comment posted Dec 04, 2010 4:36 pm PST — by Richard J Tindal
  Mike, You cite this Affirmation of Commitments provision — "ICANN commits to perform and publish analyses of the positive and negative effects of its decisions on the public, including any financial impact on the public" I read this as a…

A Case for Limited New TLD Flavors

• Comment posted Oct 04, 2010 4:27 am PDT — by Richard J Tindal
  Alex How do you propose to limit the number of new TLDs?  Who would make the choice and how would they decide? Richard

• Comment posted Sep 27, 2010 8:19 pm PDT — by Richard J Tindal
  I like giving consumers the choice of which ice cream they like, not regulators. Richard

A Little Flexibility from ICANN and We Might Just Get IDNs... for Everyone

• Comment posted Mar 16, 2010 1:38 pm PDT — by Richard J Tindal
  I think we'll find a solution to this.  As you know, the Board passed a Resolution in Nairobi establishing a Working Group whose mission is a to find a sustainable way to support limited-resource applicants.  I plan to be in…

ICANN's Board Decisions in Nairobi Will Determine Its Credibility and Respect for Years to Come

• Comment posted Mar 14, 2010 3:44 pm PDT — by Richard J Tindal
  Khaled, I'm in favor of IDN gTLDs going forward.  The only thing holding them back is ICANN's Affirmation of Commitments with the US Government.  It effectively says ICANN can't implement new TLDs (IDN or ASCII) until the overarching issues are…

A Little Flexibility from ICANN and We Might Just Get IDNs... for Everyone

• Comment posted Mar 09, 2010 12:26 pm PST — by Richard J Tindal
  Andrew, I support your goal, but I think ICANN staff have already done want you want (at least the example you gave).  The methodology they used to come up with the $185K fee already makes assumptions about multiple applications using…

Why ICANN Nairobi Security Concerns May Be a Blessing in Disguise

• Comment posted Feb 12, 2010 9:19 pm PST — by Richard J Tindal
  Thoughtful piece Kieren.  I plan to attend Nairobi, if the meeting happens, but I can see how the situation may accelerate the incremental improvement we’ve seen in remote participation, which would be a good thing. Can I re-emphasize one point…

ICANN and Its Responsibilities to the Global Public Interest

• Comment posted Feb 11, 2010 1:52 am PST — by Richard J Tindal
  David Your central question is:  ‘What public interest is served by new TLDs?’ I think it’s the right question, so let me take a shot at it. I think new TLDs will create more choice and lower prices for consumers,…

gTLDs: Why Are Your Overarching Issues Not Relevant In IDN ccTLDs?

• Comment posted Dec 09, 2009 11:07 pm PST — by Richard J Tindal
  According to this report (http://www.icann.org/en/committees/dns-root/root-scaling-study-report-31aug09-en.pdf) — "With aggressive re-planning (some of which is already underway), the system is capable of managing the risks associated with adding either (a) DNSSEC or (b) new TLDs, IDNs, and IPv6 addresses over a period…

• Comment posted Dec 07, 2009 1:15 am PST — by Richard J Tindal
  Hi Eric, I don't see technical consensus on root scaling numbers.  Some reputable sources view five hundred (or so) TLDs over a 12 month period (in conjunction with IPv6) as a threshold for 'concern'.  Others seem to view thousands of…

• Comment posted Dec 07, 2009 1:00 am PST — by Richard J Tindal
  Hi Steve, Thanks for those comments and your insights.  You've always been an open and fair Board member — which is much appreciated by all. To be clear though, we're not asking why ICANN approved IDN ccTLDs.  I think I…

• Comment posted Nov 29, 2009 7:28 pm PST — by Richard J Tindal
  I just re-read the GAC's letter of 18 Aug opposing new gTLDs and many of their objections (including their concerns about economic studies, competition analysis, root scalability, trademarks, and malicious activity) are equally applicable to the ccTLDs they seem to…

Post Delegation Dispute: A Once Supportable Concept Proposed by the IRT is Now Unsupportable

• Comment posted Oct 14, 2009 4:34 am PDT — by Richard J Tindal
  Jeff, Extremely well written article.  It captures the many, many flaws in this proposed PDDRP.  I can ALMOST see the sense in the proposal if the string was something like .MICROSOFT and the operator was someone other than Microsoft Corp. …

VeriSign Supports New gTLDs with Appropriate Safeguards

• Comment posted Oct 14, 2009 1:38 am PDT — by Richard J Tindal
  Great to hear Chuck, and good to see Verisign taking a leadership position.  I think most advocates of new TLDs share your views.  Let’s get the necessary safeguards in place (the DAG already has a lot of these — but…

On New Domains and ICANN Accountability, More Questions than Answers

• Comment posted Sep 28, 2009 6:14 pm PDT — by Richard J Tindal
  Steve You argue that IDN gTLDs should proceed before ASCII gTLDs.  For example, you're saying the Chinese character TLD meaning ‘blog’ should launch before .BLOG (in ASCII). However, these IDN gTLDs cannot proceed until all trademark and other protections are…

Domain Registry/Registrar Cross Ownership: A Reality Check

• Comment posted Sep 05, 2009 4:16 pm PDT — by Richard J Tindal
  Hi Leslie, Nice to hear from you and look forward to seeing you in Seoul. Yes, I understand the number of direct registrations at Nominet is very low, as it is for DENIC and many other ccRegistries.  My point in…

• Comment posted Sep 01, 2009 9:09 pm PDT — by Richard J Tindal
  Milton, A reasonable question, but for this issue I believe there are good reasons why it doesn't go to PDP: 1.  There are national laws that cover consumer protection and anti-competitive behavior. If Godaddy were to merge with Verisign I…

• Comment posted Aug 31, 2009 3:12 pm PDT — by Richard J Tindal
  Hi Michele, I’m going to focus on your ‘market power’ observation because that’s the key issue in this debate.  I think there’s significant hypocrisy from PIR and Afilias, who launched and grew their TLDs on a registry platform 100% OWNED…

Advocating for Domain Name Registry-Registrar Separation

• Comment posted Jun 23, 2009 9:26 am PDT — by Richard J Tindal
  If you can sift through the dire warnings of abuse, threat and harm that registry--registrar separation apparently prevent the posting actually cites just two cases:  (1) price increases; and (2) access to data from competing registrars. What?  Neither of these…

Analysis of Domain Names Registered Across Multiple Existing TLDs and Implications for New gTLDs

• Comment posted Feb 08, 2009 12:33 am PST — by Richard J Tindal
  Thanks Mike.  Appreciate your comments and respect your knowledge in this area. I think you and Paul are agreeing on the key argument in his report.  That trademark holders do not broadly register their marks in all existing gTLDs.  They’re…