Return to New TLD Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: spot
Date/Time: Sun, November 11, 2001 at 12:22 AM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.5 using Windows 98
Subject: The problem is both 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 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.


Message Thread:

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy