410 writes:>Of course
it makes sense to have undifferentiated (or at least broad)TLDs.<
I'm not opposed
to broad TLDs. If there is no differentiation needed, why not name the new domains
.xcs or .410?
>They open up new tiers of SLDs for general use, which is the primary
need when you talk about introducing new TLDs.<
I don't accept that. I think if
someone wants to put up a website, they put up a website, perhaps at first without
their own sLD, then later by whatever name they can find in a TLD. I just don't accept
that someone out there has a plan for a website but the only thing lacking is a name
as it is already taken, and therefore they want new TLDs and will put their plans
on hold until they arrive. business.com isn't available, perhaps I'll be the one
to register business.biz and then I'll be a success online. I don't think that way,
I put sites up with the best name available. If I were to register business.biz then
business.com is going to take it away anyway.
>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.<
As a matter of fact, it
normally is. You have commercial zones, residential zones, light industrial zones,
etc.
>Only 5 percent of the world's population is online.
And 90 percent of the
world's population has never used a telephone. This idea that new users will continue
to flood onto the net in huge numbers isn't supported by facts.
>The architecture
of the Internet simply doesn't have to be so complicated.<
I don't see how my suggestions
complicate anything, they would simplify things.
>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.<
I don't think a .banc
or .union is too highly specialized. I was also not asking that they be policed for
compliance. I assume that those within the domain would want to do their own policing.
Better to have a closed .reg domain that polices itself at its cost, than that the
UDRP police for compliance in all domains. If the charter says they won't police,
that they are wide open, that's fine too, they'll have to live with it. Usenet is
an example. You have chartered sci. groups, you have open .alt groups, you have .mod
erated groups. To each their own. BTW I am a very disorderly person.
>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).<
I
agree. The total control you ascribe to me is what the Intellectual Property Constituency
wants, which I certainly don't favor. I would like to see a combination of open and
closed TLDs, with the latter being in various models, .reg .kids .union so that we
can learn from them.
I also want to see open undifferentiated TLDs like
.biz and .shop because I think we will learn from that too. I suspect the lessons
of the latter will be that we will have increased confusion: how is myworld.biz different
from myworld.shop or myworld.com, increased domain disputes, and the script kiddies
will have registered all the good names.