ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Honest Question: How many new gTLDs do we need?? | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 141 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Re: Honest Queston: How many new gTLDs do we need
    by Anonymous on Saturday November 10 2001, @07:28AM (#3515)
    You're absolutely right! For that matter, how many newspapers do we need? Why not just have everyone put their content into USA Today? It's confusing to decide which newspaper I want to read. It would be better if there were just one or two.

    I also think that having so many different hamburger joints doesn't make any sense, either. Let's just nuke Wendy's and Burger King, and we'll all eat at McDonald's. It's too confusing to have so many burger places.

    Hey, this works for religion, too!
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Honest Queston: How many new gTLDs do we need
    by Anonymous on Saturday November 10 2001, @08:20AM (#3516)

    This shows the limited scope of most Internet users.

    There is more to the DNS than web sites and searching.

    What about TLDs needed for other purposes ?

    What about using TLDs for other purposes ?

    It is sad that so many Internet users have such
    a novice level of experience, yet appear to want
    to appear as adults in the discussions.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    ICANN has a Serious Problem on it's Hands
    by Anonymous on Saturday November 10 2001, @08:26AM (#3517)
    ICANN has a Serious Problem on it's Hands

    Open and transparent is fine, but, does that mean
    that any random human can walk in off the street,
    with very little experience, and start making
    statements that people are supposed to consider ?

    It appears that ICANN is going to have to start
    limiting the participation to people who can pass
    a basic test in "technical coordination of the Internet".
    It would be interesting to see what questions would
    be on such a test and whether the ICANN Board
    would be able to pass.

    At some point the commercial companies with a
    vested interest in the DNS industry will have to
    withdraw from ICANN. It is clear that more and
    more people have less and less experience. It is
    not useful to listen to 15 crying children yelling
    "I want my .WEB"
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    ICANN is All About Price Regulation - Pure and Sim
    by Anonymous on Saturday November 10 2001, @08:30AM (#3518)

    ICANN is only going to choose the TLDs that have
    registries charging less than $6 per year.

    As Stuart Lynn said, certain companies do not fit
    in the package.

    ICANN is All About Price Regulation - Pure and Simple
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    MountRushmore.MD
    by Anonymous on Saturday November 10 2001, @08:32AM (#3519)

    MountRushmore.MD

    Might find you a Doctor when you fall off that mountain.

    http://www.register.md/

    Why are .WEB people so clueless ?

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Honest Queston: How many new gTLDs do we need
    by Anonymous on Saturday November 10 2001, @08:44AM (#3522)

    .WEB people will have to live with the fact that
    ICANN is not going to endorse them for entry into
    the U.S. Government's Root Servers.

    ICANN and the U.S. Government have their hands
    full. They could not even get some simple TLDs
    launched properly without wide-spread fraud,
    unrest, and amateur operations. It may take them
    years to get those few TLDs sorted out. There
    are 50,000 or more names on-hold in the mess.

    .WEB is at the back of a very long line.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Honest Queston: How many new gTLDs do we need
    by Anonymous on Saturday November 10 2001, @09:09AM (#3526)
    Honest Queston: How many new gTLDs do we need??

    Usage of the term "gTLD" shows a bias, or a
    basic lack of understanding of how DNS works.

    All TLDs are the same.

    All TLDs are handled the same in the servers.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Honest Question: How many new gTLDs do we nee
    by Anonymous on Saturday November 10 2001, @12:29PM (#3547)
    Honest Question: How many new gTLDs do we need??

    New ones ? - Answer: No more new ones

    There are plenty with over 3,500 in use.

    Go .WEB !!!
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Honest Question: How many new gTLDs do we nee
    by Anonymous on Saturday November 10 2001, @12:52PM (#3552)

    .BIZ has much more demand than .WEB, look at the numbers
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Honest Question: How many new gTLDs do we nee
    by Anonymous on Saturday November 10 2001, @01:28PM (#3558)

    .WEB is boring

    The next TLDs will be:

    .CBS
    .ABC
    .NBC
    .FOX
    .MTV
    .CNN

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Honest Question: How many new gTLDs do we nee
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Saturday November 10 2001, @01:34PM (#3563)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    The TLDs all do have distinct purposes, though there is a lot of misuse that blurs these distinctions.

    MountRushmore.net: Should be used by a network infrastructure provider, perhaps one in the vicinity of the mountain.

    MountRushmore.com: A commercial site pertaining to Mount Rushmore.

    MountRushmore.info: An informational site about Mount Rushmore, perhaps commercial and perhaps noncommercial.

    MountRushmore.org: A noncommercial organization pertaining to Mount Rushmore.

    MountRushmore.web: Doesn't really exist, since that domain hasn't been added to the Internet's official roots to date, and may never be.

    MountRushmore.biz: Another commercial site pertaining to Mount Rushmore. In this case, there really is unnecessary duplication, as both .com and .biz are going after the same sorts of uses.

    MountRushmore.shop: Another domain that doesn't really exist.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    .BIZ is going to Las Vegas - Not the boring ICANN
    by Anonymous on Saturday November 10 2001, @01:43PM (#3567)
    http://www.neulevel.com/
    Comdex.BIZ
    Meet the People Behind .BIZ
    Booth - L4918
    November 12 - 15
    Las Vegas, Nevada USA
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Trademark Date: 1900-01-01 ????????????????
    by Anonymous on Saturday November 10 2001, @06:49PM (#3592)
    How can someone trademark that ?

    Domain ID: D94461-LRMS
    Domain Name: MOUNTRUSHMORE.INFO
    Created On: 12-Sep-2001 01:35:41 UTC
    Expiration Date: 12-Sep-2003 01:35:41 UTC
    Trademark Name: mountrushmore
    Trademark Date: 1900-01-01
    Sponsoring Registrar: eMarkmonitor Inc.dba Markmonitor (R151-LRMS)
    Status: ACTIVE
    Status: OK
    Registrant ID: C201486-LRMS
    Registrant Name: Gregory Krajewski
    Registrant Organization: Gregory W. Krajewski
    Registrant Street1: 2038 12th Ave
    Registrant City: Belle Fourche
    Registrant State/Province: SD
    Registrant Postal Code: 57717
    Registrant Country: US
    Registrant Phone: +1.6057234282
    Registrant FAX: +1.2532955994
    Registrant Email: gkrajews@mato.com
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Honest Question: How many new gTLDs do we nee
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Saturday November 10 2001, @09:31PM (#3598)
    User #2810 Info
    To try to answer your question Gregory, I think we have to go one way or the other. Either...

    1. Stop rolling out new TLDs to limit confusion, and you didn't even mention that there may well also be numerous mountrushmore.ccTLDs out there, which seems silly, but there are numerous open ccTLDs which could care less. Or...

    2. Go with hundreds of gTLDs that have some meaning, eg: .museum, a la the yellow pages.

    I opt for 2. I always have. Before NSI flattened com/net/org into uselessness, there was some meaning to each gTLD. If it is too late to go back, and I imagine most would agree that it is too late, then we should either limit the damage with 1. or try to make the best of a bad situation with 2. ICANN's adding of .biz and .info didn't help matters, adding further undifferentiated TLDs will make it worse. I suspect ICANN will use the continuing .info and .biz problems to go with 1. for some time. They will then go with some sort of 3. that makes a further mess of things but makes them and their friends a lot more money. This isn't about good design or end-user usefulness, it is about money, and as long as that obtains the DNS will be a mess. Might as well get used to it. -g

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    This is why the ALSC suggestion is bad
    by Mpawlo on Saturday November 10 2001, @11:57PM (#3600)
    User #2936 Info | http://www.pawlo.com/
    You pose an important question. Fellow ICANNwatchers remember my critisism of Mr Carl Bildt's ALSC report.

    This is what I wrote then, and it has a lot of merit in respect of the question you pose:

    The only regulation that I consider sound is a global regulation based on the participation of nations. The work of ICANN affects mostly those who still have not found their way out on the Internet. To make domain name ownership a condition for voting rights is therefore not appropriate. Current domain name holders should be most interested in decreasing the amount of new top-level domain names. New top-level domain names will lead to inflation in the legal and economic rights of the domain name holder.

    A new top-level domain name can lead to multiple registration of the same domain names and defamation and degeneration. A "good" domain name will be less worth if it's available under multiple top-level domain names.

    However, it will benefit society if the name space is widened, while it will lead to more competition and innovation.

    Hence, I find it more suitable to make as many nations as possible, offline or online, participate in ICANN or an organisation replacing ICANN. It can be achieved through the United Nations or a similar body."

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Will UDRP Award MOUNTRUSHMORE.INFO to another ?
    by Anonymous on Sunday November 11 2001, @08:57AM (#3609)
    Will UDRP Award MOUNTRUSHMORE.INFO to another owner with a shorter, inclusive name ?

    Domain ID: D642003-LRMS
    Domain Name: RUSHMORE.INFO
    Created On: 18-Sep-2001 22:44:10 UTC
    Expiration Date: 18-Sep-2003 22:44:10 UTC
    Sponsoring Registrar: Domain Registration Services, Inc dba dotearth.com (R127-LRMS)
    Status: ACTIVE
    Status: OK
    Registrant ID: C753385-LRMS
    Registrant Name: USA Tourism
    Registrant Organization: USA Tourism
    Registrant Street1: 1183 Woodridge Dr.
    Registrant City: Rapid City
    Registrant State/Province: SD
    Registrant Postal Code: 57701
    Registrant Country: US
    Registrant Phone: +1.6053485282
    Registrant FAX: +1.6053413206
    Registrant Email: sean@usatourism.com
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    .WEB people are just name speculators
    by Anonymous on Sunday November 11 2001, @09:06AM (#3614)
    .WEB people are just name speculators

    They should start .conn or .corn
    and attract all the .com people
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Where are some example .WEB sites developed ?
    by Anonymous on Sunday November 11 2001, @09:10AM (#3615)
    Where are some example .WEB sites developed ?

    Just supply the IP address.

    http://___.___.___.___
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    ICANN the Movie - Part III
    by Anonymous on Monday November 12 2001, @04:09AM (#3651)

    http://icannmovie.tripod.com/
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Honest Question: How many new gTLDs do we nee
    by Anonymous on Monday November 12 2001, @10:19AM (#3668)
    We could use some innovative ones. A couple of examples:

    .alt - can't be held by the same people who hold the name in an existing gTLD.

    .not - can't be held by a trademark holder on the name.


    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Honest Question: How many new gTLDs do we nee
    by Anonymous on Monday November 19 2001, @09:47AM (#3732)
    Notwithstanding the flaming suffered by Coach Krajewski, his question has merit.

    A quick check of media metrix's "top 50" web properties reveals that the busiest web sites are those WITHOUT descriptive names. In fact, of the top 50, only Homestore.com really skirts the line between descriptive and random naming (Amazon and Yahoo! being the textbook exemplars of so-called "random" naming-- random, because Amazon has nothing to do with e-commerce and Yahoo! has nothing to do with search/content services).

    This is telling because it calls into question the value to web users of the kind of descriptive-naming utopia envisioned by those of us who advocate expanding the root to include scores more gTLDs.

    Granted, the current "top 50" is skewed by the present dominance of .com, and looking exclusively at the "top 50" to gauge the utility of non-commercial properties is, at best, a deeply flawed indicator.

    But it at least makes one wonder whether the "if we add them, users will visit" assumptions of root-expansion advocates are anything more than that-- assumptions. (If my implied criticism irks anybody, rest assured that I include myself among those who have simply assumed that more gTLDs are better.)

    So I am curious-- does anybody have any *empirical evidence* that the slow expansion of the root has in any way adversely affected the growth of the internet or its utility to web users?

    If not, can anybody think of how one might generate this kind of empirical data?

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]


    Search ICANNWatch.org:


    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