Return to New TLD Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ
||Sun, November 11, 2001 at 12:22 AM GMT
||Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.5 using Windows 98
||The problem is both new.net and icann are opposite extremes, and balance is required.
I agree Icann is too slow at adding new tlds. It seems Icann don't actually do very
much at all apart from get woken up occasionally and say 'umm OK you can do that,
but you over there can't. zzzzzz...".|
I am in favour of what new.net is trying
to do in principle but I think they've gone several steps too far. They have already
intoduced too many tlds, and no doubt more are on the way. I get the feeling that
they invent a new tld whenever sales of their existing army of names slows down.
It's almost like they're bottling up air and selling it on.
The internet could
do with a few more extensions, but not that many, and I would like to see a different
company looking after each extension.
But there definitely needs to be some limit
on extensions, otherwise your average non-techie internet user will get confused
and end up in someone else's site. (Unless you fancy buying your domain in dozens
of different extensions - that's if you can). That confusion would be bad for business,
and we might see something (e.g. keywords or a derivative) replace the DNS if that
happened. Too many extensions would either render all the new non-icann approved
ones worthless, or even devalue existing icann approved ones as well.