Introduction of New Top-Level Domains - A@L view

["RJGlass | America@Large" <jipshida@xxxxxxxxx>]

First, I would like to reiterate Karl's and the other responses as valid and
should be considered.

Then, I would like to re-iterate my previous input on new TLDs.  I was
almost convinced that an unlimited number of TLDs would be a good thing.
But then, I returned to my long-standing stance that without some defined
consideration that new TLDs are a hindrance to the namespace.  I was almost
convinced otherwise because of the proposed geographic TLDs (.berlin, .nyc,
et al.), but returned to my previous state because I don't see the added
value to the namespace by the introduction of these domains.

My long-standing stance has been that unless a new operator can introduce a
new concept, rather than just a duplication of .com/.net etc, then there
really is no purpose other than further segmenting the root system.  The
reason for this, is that from the top-level, we can add levels to the left
of the domain by [i think] 255 levels.  Therefore, the act of
differentiating the TLD even by geography creates added confusion that, in
my opinion, destabilizes and confuses the namespace overall.  As an example
- using .nyc (as a similar example I've used previously with .jobs) - if a
hotel company wanted to signify its connection to nyc, it could add to the
third level (nyc.hilton.com).  By establishing the capability of hilton.nyc,
it does add another avenue for the hotel's capabilities, but at the same
time, it confuses 1) the Internet user and 2) the hotel chain and
exacerbates simple trademark issues.  By issuing new TLDs we are increasing
the current problem of trademark issues, which are widely known.  With
regard to this issue, I could see that in the future, or under circumstances
other than those provided, that these considerations would be a good thing.
But, currently operational issues regarding domains, trademark issues, and
contingency planning should be resolved first before expanding.

Another thought, if geography was an issue, it would be simple for the local
ISPs themselves to operate an independent TLD separate from the existing
namespace without ICANNs approval.

On the other hand, .mobi and .tel provide new concepts not already existing
in the namespace.  These new concepts are unique to their TLD and can be of
added value to the Internet user.  These are good examples of TLDs that
should be introduced.

While ICANN states that it doesn't want to get into the censorship business,
it is by default providing censorship based on the criteria that is
developed within the documents under consideration (en re: .exe, .xxx,
.kids, .kkk).  Therefore, It is my opinion that ICANN first decide what is
really necessary prior to initiating a wide call for new TLDs.

In my opinion, new TLDs should offer something NEW, rather than just a copy
of that which exists.

RJ Glass
AmericaAtLarge.us


-------------------------
AmericaAtLarge.org
RJPacific.com
DDMF.org