Return to New TLD Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username:	S. Hudgens
Date/Time:	Mon, February 11, 2002 at 3:59 PM GMT
Browser:	Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.5 using Windows 98
Subject:	More TLDs
Message:
I agree completely.  There is an artificial congestion in the namespace.  We don't need any more TLDs?  I suppose that is true, if one is satisfied with a 33 character .com (or a second-rate .info or .buz...whoops, I mean .biz.  Sorry, I was confused…). Come on, folks.  Wake up and smell the bandwidth.  More TLDs won't create confusion.  That is a lot like saying the city I live in can't build more roads because people would then have a greater chance of getting lost. The 'lower quality sites' argument is a new one to me.  Are we now saying that only those who have been trained in HTML (with a valid ICANN-issued license) can possess a good domain name, because otherwise they might create a badly designed site?  Good lord.  Welcome to the Internet Gestapo in its infancy, laid out in an easy-to-read format on ICANN.org.  S. Hudgens

Message Thread:

• More names available — Casino, February 5 @ 3:06 AM (2/6)
• scamming by numbers - taking the .info and .biz launch scams — antipathy, February 5 @ 12:10 AM (0/0)
• More domains = more confusion, less quality sites, more 404 page ERRORs — Gregory W. Krajewski, February 5 @ 4:55 AM (3/4)
• artificial arguments — RayF, February 5 @ 3:09 PM (1/1)
• More TLDs — S. Hudgens, February 11 @ 3:59 PM (0/0)
• More restricted TLD = less confusion + less 404 page ERRORs — Garry Anderson, February 5 @ 10:13 AM (0/0)
• what about .WEB ? ;-) (eom) — EasyTech2, February 5 @ 8:00 AM (0/0)

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy