<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Regarding the introduction of new gTLD's
- To: new-gtlds-dns-stability@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Regarding the introduction of new gTLD's
- From: PSByOwner@xxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:56:43 EST
Dear Sirs,
I would like to make 2 primary points with regards to the introduction of
new gTLD's.
#1. It is clear that there is an administrative policy of ICANN to neatly
categorize the Internet by domain name extensions. For example, .biz for
businesses, .org for organizations, etc. It is clearly too late to attempt to
do
this. The Internet is already 'liberalized' to the point that domain name
endings mean little with respect to their web content. An online store could
be a
.org, and an information website could be a .com. This is because ICANN has
correctly not interfered or regulated who gets what domain name endings; and
for what their purpose is to be at the point of registration. Such a
regulation is not economically enforceable by ICANN; nor is the cost to
maintain a
policing body to enforce such content rules. This leaves the question of
'Purpose': Why introduce a flood of new domain names into a already
established and
stable marketplace? Why disrupt a stable system of domain values without a
justifiable reason to do so?
ICANN seriously needs to reevaluate its directive of categorization to fit
with the realities that are present today. These realities underscore what
already is 'absolute liberalization': as such, domain name extensions are, in
and of themselves, meaningless. Are new gTLD's really needed now? One need
only
observe the lack of development on the last cluster of names to know new
extensions are not needed. Simply put, .biz, .info, .name, etc have only been
fractionally developed; Which leads me to my second point:
#2. ICANN Administration seems to be working forward on a backwards,
outdated premise: That there exists a major demand for new Internet
categorizations
and domain name endings. This premise is built on the domain name speculation
era; where there was a great sense of urgency to create more name endings.
Domains were not regulated at point of sale to have any particular class of
content, based on domain name ending. Therefore, new domain name extensions
only address expansion and availability issues; not any need for Internet
'categorization' of content.
I conclude with an analysis of the realities of today: The purpose of a
domain name extension is to create a website that people know about and visit,
for the benefit of those that register domain names. What good is a domain name
if no one visits it? More non distinct name endings mean more expenses to
market websites by smaller companies and individuals; to get people to visit
their websites. The costs for google.com and yahoo.com advertising has become
prohibitive to small companies and individuals. This in turn favors the larger
companies, who have vast amounts of marketing capital for their Internet
operations. There should be additional Anti-Trust concerns, because richer,
larger companies will be favored with any dilution of the name space with more
irrelevant domain name endings.
Thank you for your attention.
Respectfully,
Bryan Suitt
**************The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy
Awards. Go to AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys?NCID=aolcmp00300000002565)
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|