Return to New TLD Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username:	S. Hudgens
Date/Time:	Fri, October 26, 2001 at 5:28 PM GMT
Browser:	Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.5 using Windows 98
Subject:	.INFO
Message:
I think .INFO will eventually become a good tool for the reasons you mentioned, but its goodness is unfortunately limited, to a certain extent, by how well Afilias can overcome their own incompetence. In my view, there shouldn't be any limits to how may TLD's there are in the root.  ICANN as a body should only be involved in weighing the technical soundness of an applicant, avoiding conflicts, and not predetermining the value of the TLD being applied for.  Each will stand own its own merits, and market conditions will determine which are successful.  Just because we like a TLD doesn't necessarily mean it will be widely accepted. I also believe we do need a generic TLD that will not become limited by its description.  While .INFO is simply wonderful for sites like weather.info or consumer.info (among many others), there are other situations where it might not make sense.  The goodness of a TLD shouldn't be determined based on how it conflicts with another existing TLD.  It isn't like the success of .INFO is dependant upon another TLD's approval, such as .WEB.  Both will stand or fall on their own merits. Shelby Hudgens

Message Thread:

• Realistic expectations and a .INFO valuation model — challenge, October 26 @ 3:37 PM (2/29)
• .INFO — S. Hudgens, October 26 @ 5:28 PM (0/0)
• Quite Right — richard_henderson, October 26 @ 5:14 PM (2/27)
• .info is a boon...... — onmove, October 26 @ 7:53 PM (3/7)
• You just described the use of every TLD on the planet .... — cgrady, October 26 @ 10:36 PM (0/0)
• kindred spirits - I am in agreement with above posters - but — antipodes, October 26 @ 10:30 PM (1/1)
• I have not forgotten about the appalling arse they made on purpose — spot, October 26 @ 10:56 PM (0/0)
• I agree! — cambler, October 26 @ 8:01 PM (1/3)
• How many more TLDs would you like to see added to the root? As many as new.net are pushing for? — spot, October 26 @ 10:59 PM (1/2)
• How many? — cambler, October 27 @ 1:16 AM (1/1)
• Yes, I agree with the 1 apiece recommendation, and that is my main grumble with new.net — spot, October 27 @ 3:02 AM (0/0)
• The argument for fairness — challenge, October 26 @ 6:23 PM (1/18)
• Fairness — S. Hudgens, October 26 @ 7:03 PM (1/17)
• Logic — challenge, October 26 @ 8:08 PM (1/16)
• Overlap — S. Hudgens, October 26 @ 8:58 PM (2/15)
• I Agree! NO OVERLAP! — Timberstone, October 27 @ 5:33 AM (0/0)
• Overlap — cambler, October 26 @ 9:10 PM (1/13)
• Yes. — S. Hudgens, October 26 @ 9:36 PM (1/12)
• Overlap — challenge, October 26 @ 11:28 PM (2/11)
• Overlap is irrelevant — cgrady, October 27 @ 5:19 PM (0/0)
• Banging heads — cambler, October 27 @ 1:20 AM (2/9)
• urr... — InternetAdvocate, October 28 @ 10:01 PM (1/1)
• Shows you how long ago I left LA! — cambler, October 29 @ 4:15 AM (0/0)
• Wrong again — challenge, October 27 @ 4:29 PM (3/6)
• Don't belong? — cambler, October 27 @ 6:08 PM (1/1)
• TLDs selected in November 2000 — Jim Fleming, October 27 @ 6:20 PM (0/0)
• No overlap = monopoly — cgrady, October 27 @ 5:46 PM (1/2)
• Monopolistic... — InternetAdvocate, October 28 @ 10:04 PM (1/1)
• You're right — cambler, October 29 @ 4:17 AM (0/0)
• Where should .WEB people be ? — Jim Fleming, October 27 @ 5:32 PM (0/0)

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy