<< 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. >>Nor is it
something that could be feasibly monitored at either the moment of registration or
throughout all points in development.
The inherent problem is that the purpose
of .org is too specific and restrictive in a world of pragmatics, if not in a world
of ideals. If the Internet was some great filing cabinent run by a handful of people
in charge of cataloguing the contents, fine. But it isn't. There are a million people
scurrying all over the place, and it is going to become more active in the years
to come.
I think the mission of each new TLD coming out should be broad enough
to encompass many uses. .art is perhaps the most restrictive in its definition.
And
not all sites (or even businesses) are "shops" per se, so .shop is inherently flawed.
Which
brings me to your point,
<< 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. >>
Of course it makes sense to
have undifferentiated (or at least broad)TLDs. They open up new tiers of SLDs for
general use, which is the primary need when you talk about introducing new TLDs.
Consider
real-world architecture in a city, and view the TLDs as avenues. 5th Avenue is not
designated for clothing stores, 4th Avenue being designted for book stores, 3rd Avenue
for travel agencies, etc.
Now true--in the real world similar stores DO cluster
together quite often (in major metropolitan centers) to make things easy for the
consumer. That is not mandated however. Rather, it forms naturally. And a travel
agency is not ousted from 5th Avenue or prohibited from setting up shop there.
Open
the Avenues on the Internet. Let these TLDs generate whatever tone happens to come
from them.
If you don't want contamination in the given "specialized" TLDs, DON'T
create ultra-specialized TLDs.
Only 5 percent of the world's population is online.
In the next five years alone, the Internet is going to be besieged by many many more--and
soon it will match the number of people who own and use phones.
With all this activity.
. . With all the web developers out there. . . it makes no sense to expect them to
file into the respective TLDs in a tidy fashion. Nor is monitoring their activity
for TLD compliance an acceptable investment in money and energy.
The architecture
of the Internet simply doesn't have to be so complicated.
In my opinion,
people who call for highly specialized TLDs, and then ask for the policing of each
TLD for compliance, are just people who hate disorderliness in life in general. There
is nothing wrong with that when you're arranging your desk or your closet. But it
is not realistic in certain other venues.
The Internet is a metropolitan center.
And while crime should not be tolerated, you should expect a degree of hubub, pass-crossing,
and painting outside of the lines (to mix my metaphors).
Nothing will break if
you drew those lines fluidly.