Venster writes:>Why do people want a .union? And who
wants it? Is it usefull to create a TLD for a very limited number of second level
domains that can easily be found place for in .org? After .union we will have calls
for .church, .museum (already mentioned in proposals), .party (in many countries
there are more than two), .ath(letics), just to mention a few strictly non-commercial
bodies. These should be in .org.<
I agree that they should have been in .org, but
that was before NSI opened com/net/org to anyone for anything. The three might as
well be indistinguishable now. Someone suggested here that we go back and do it right,
throw the non-orgs out of .org the non-coms out of .com, etc. but that is probably
impossible.
I agree with you and your site that there are plenty of good names
available. I don't think new TLDs should be created in response to some imagined
scarcity. And if the scarcity is real everyone registering other versions of their
names in other TLDs, and all the speculators, will leave us in the same position,
only more confused.
If that was all there was to it, I'd say (and used to) 'no
new tlds'.
However I now think new TLDs should be created to solve apparent and
long-standing problems. Trademark holders should have their own .reg domains for
example. This would get rid of cybersquatting. Creating .adult and/or .kids may help
to solve what some see as a problem. Creating .union would serve a different purpose,
so would .church.
If groups, either commercial or otherwise, can see a need for
such, if they can write up a proposal showing there is interest, come up with a charter,
why shouldn't they be allowed to apply for and ultimately receive a TLD. I don't
think this should be done all at once, create a few domains for TM business interests
to see what the result will be, create an .adult and/or .kids to see what the result
will be. Create a .union or similar to see what the results will be. Bring in .web
and its database to see what the results will be. Bring in one other open domain
to see what the results will be.
There, that totals 6-10 new TLDs of different
form and function which can be seen as a decent testbed. If any or all of these tests
fail we will still learn something and there won't be any harm done to the DNS, they've
added lots of ccTLDs without major problems. If .adult falls flat, there's no harm
in that either to the DNS or to the consumer. .int is a TLD, do you see it inconveniencing
anyone by its existence?
If we are going to have new TLDs soon of some type or
another (which seems likely), then it seems to me that just creating an open .biz
and .shop and etc. will solve no existing problems, and tell us what we already know,
that undifferentiated open domains make no sense.
Therefore why not use this opportunity
to deal with the perceived trademark problem, the perceived porn problem, the perceived
.web problem, as well as make TLDs more user friendly. If we don't do it with this
first rollout it will be more difficult or impossible in future depending on what
else is rolled out in its stead.