| | 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This discussion has been archived.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.
|
|
 |
Here's a pointer to my own comments on the original note - Techies wanna do policy [cavebear.com]
In that note I come to the conclusion that many technologists look fondly back to some imagined era of halcyon bliss on the internet. Some of those who once lept past the status quo and invented are now using technical arguments, often faux-technical arguments, to restrain those who which to leap past today's status quo and innovate further.
We know fully well that the domain name system can support litterally millions of top level domains. So even an approach that is conservative upon conservative would allow one new TLD per week. At that rate it would take thousands of years to get to what we know today are technically viable numbers of TLDs.
Between aging technologists (myself included) and those (such as the intellectual property industry) who have perceived a short-term economic interest in internet stagnation there are mighty forces linked up against not only the free interplay of economic forces on the net but also against the development of any new technology unless that technology is rendered inert, sterile, and unlikely to contain innovative forces to disturb the status quo.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| - Re:Pointer to my own response from May of this yea
by Anonymous
Tuesday November 02 2004, @02:34PM
- Re:Pointer to my own response from May of this yea
by Anonymous
Wednesday November 03 2004, @04:31AM
|
|
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
]
|
|
| | 4 replies beneath your current threshold. |
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
|
