No Wildcards, period. Consider removing .travel from the root

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

Enabling the wildcard in .travel should be denied.

DNS is *not* a fuzzy search engine -- it's a 1-to-1 mapping that is
meant to be authoritative. If the same idea was proposed in the
telephone industry, where I'm certain a lot of calls to dead phone
numbers are made daily, folks would call it preposterous.

One can read the 20,000+ views of others on the original SiteFinder
issue at the old petition site http://www.VeriSignSucks.com . There's
no reason to open up the can of worms again, to set a precedent for
.com/net/org. The people have spoken --- registries lost the battle,
and the war. It is only ICANN's poor representation of the public in
the .com proposed contract, the .net contract, and the proposed
.biz/info/org contracts that is inviting registries to try to win these
lost wars.

Tralliance has said in the Washington Post that the amount generated
from wildcarding would be "miniscule". If that was true, they wouldn't
be fighting on this issue, and would be seeking to innovate elsewhere.
Given that there are apparently only 20,000 or so .travel sites, the
existence of .travel in the root itself should be re-evaluated (I've
taken the same position on .asia and other new TLDs, that there should
be preset metrics that determine whether or not a probationary TLD has
failed, so that it can be removed from the root). I have seen
search.travel tv commercials on CNBC, though, so it makes one wonder
whether Tralliance is changing its business model from selling domain
names to instead trying to monetize search.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/