| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
(Belated) Response to Tim Berners-Lee on New TLDs
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 17 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
|
...who comes up with this stuff??? How does a conservative upon conservative example that is so aggressive that it will never happen always jump straight past "stability" and right to user confusion? No matter how conservative upon conservative the argument for TLD expansion is presented, people have to immediately run to the stability and confusion umbrella...let's not worry about doing any sort of REAL due diligence but instead just throw out the mantra to ad nauseum, over and over...it's ridiculous and this gridlock - based upon stakeholder alliances some of which are hard to fathom but in fact have proven powerful - has measurably harmed the credibility of ICANN in the process...stated missions involving core objectives that are not carried out harm the credibility of an organization...that's what is really simple to understand today and not difficult to predict.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
Perhaps many names will confuse you, but is it right for you to impose your own subjective judgement on everyone else? If you can be emperor of the internet then why can't I or why can't Fred down the street?
The subject nature of your objection contains the seeds of its own failure - the absence of enunciated and reasonbly objective principles that underly your objection render any idea of governance unworkable.
Going directly to your assertion that adding a new TLD a week will add to confusion - remember that means that by year 2054 we would have less than 3000 total TLDs - In .com there are more than 3000 name changes a day. And nobody is arguing that .com should be shut down because it is confusing.
In Orwell's 1984 the English language was 'simplified' into NewSpeak - should we reduce the domain name space in the same way in order to reduce confusion. Sould we remove the letter 0 and digit 0 from domain names because they might be considered confusing?
And if confusion is the metric, then ENUM is certainly a no-starter.
We do not impose limits on the number of names that one can put on detergent and toothpaste - there is a simple self-corrective force - if people can't remember the name then the product will fail. Similarly, the burden of establishing a memorable name in the domain name system should not be imposed on the DNS itself but rather should be part of the well known job of "building the brand" that has been done by vendors for ages.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
