ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[new-gtld-questions]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

America@Large

  • To: new-gtld-questions@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: America@Large
  • From: RJGlass <jipshida@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 00:41:18 -0700 (PDT)

New TLD

In a preliminary response, and not meant to downgrade
ICANN's efforts at all, I'll simply offer some input
and get to the questions posted in a later post.

I do think that this subject should be thoroughly
explored, especially before the release of any more
TLDs.  However, This will be my 4th time mentioning in
public the simple fact of which I'll continue to
mention until someone hears it: get the existing
structure solidified before making further
progression.  In other words, I really can't fathom a
need for more TLDs of any type - right now.  What
about in 2525? Well, there obviously may be a valid
need, maybe not.  Currently, we are building a
structure without solid foundations.  (exhibit B:
Michael D. Palage's post)

I humbly wonder how it is possible that by introducing
more TLDs would create a more stable environment. 
While I personally envision ICANN as a 'facilitator,'
I don't see how adding confusion to the network helps
to facilitate.  

In his posting, John Sangster makes some good points,
and maybe something like .inc (for valid corp's), .llc
for LLCs, etc. may be a good idea if it really
fulfills a real and valid purpose.  How about
.foundation for bona fide foundations?  And, let's not
even touch upon geographic disparities that are
inevitable.  So, let me regress to the beginning -
.com, .net, .org, I would challenge the fact that
these TLDs actually fulfill the purposes they were
concieved for.  Has anyone ever seen a nonprofit using
a .com? Certainly.  Has anyone ever seen a mom&pop
business using .net? Certainly.  Ever seen a .net
using their DNS entries for actual networking
purposes? Maybe - maybe.  Ever seen a porn site using
.org? - go look.  These may be anomolies, but they are
examples of reality.  I'd like to introduce the .glass
TLD, for exclusive use of my family; therefore I guess
it would be OK for me to have a website URL
coca-cola.glass; or perhaps I could just sell the
hostname (domain) to Coke in order to generate
revenue.  Is the .tv ccTLD really FOR the people
(government) of Tuvalu, or is it for people marketing
tv shows, or is it for the government to sell to the
highest bidding registrar/registry?  Would a user be
using rational behavior to expect to find a travel
agent or a show on the travel channel by typing the
URL travel.tv?

Here's the main reason I draw these inferences, in the
URLs we can already go to the left several levels, so
what would the difference be in these 4 URLs? 1)
tech.jobs.motorola.com 2)motorola.corp.tech.jobs 3)
tech.motorola.jobs 4)
i.am.looking.for.a.job.at.motorola - So as we
introduce more TLDs, we further complicate the logical
navigation of the Internet.  Guess what? None of these
4 URLs exist in the DNS.  Also, most website producers
rarely will go beyond the 3rd level TLD.  Thus, one
would even expect either jobs.motorola.com OR
motorola.jobs to resolve in the DNS, which neither do.

How confusing to me, as a common user of the Internet.
 Why would the company want more confusion? Why would
the user want more confusion?  Why would we strive to
confuse the situation?  How does this apply to the
ICANN bylaws? 

I make these statements to generate a new thought
process, not to ridicule.  While we maintain
transparency, let's not try to maintain hypocrisy. 
Let's please put some real thought into the future of
the DNS.

Cordially,
Randy Glass
A@L

AmericaAtLarge.US


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>