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    This discussion has been archived.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 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 ]
    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 ]
    Re: Honest Queston: How many new gTLDs do we need
    by Gregory_Krajewski on Saturday November 10 2001, @08:44AM (#3521)
    User #2940 Info
    What do restaraunt's , newspapers and religion have to do with TLDs?

    If I want the USA today paper, I go and buy one. IF I want to to McDonald's, I go no where to find one. IF I practice christianity, I can go to any church I like. If your counterpoint to mine is that diversity in TLDs is better than just having a few, well then you missed my point.

    My question I posed to everyone is: How many TLDs do we need?? My point is if you have too many you risk causing the "duplicative effect" (krajewski, 2001)......To borrow your theme if I am new to a town, and I like McDonald hamburgers...which place do I go to....As we no, not all have the same quality standards....Imagine 50 McDonald's on the same street...which one would you go to???

    My suggestion for you Mr Annonymous is to not hand me any more ammunition!

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Honest Queston: How many new gTLDs do we need
    by Gregory_Krajewski on Saturday November 10 2001, @09:15AM (#3527)
    User #2940 Info
    The internet is used for many things, above all I think it's best used to find information. Having said that, I want to be able to find that information in short order...

    If for example (hypothetical), I enter Chair Design in "Google" for example and get the following web addresses:

    ChairDesign.com
    ChairDesign.net
    ChairDesign.org
    ChairDesign.web
    ChairDesign.info
    ChairDesign.shop
    Chair-Design.com
    Chair-Design.net
    Chair-Design.org
    Chair-Design.web
    (you get the point)

    Which one do you go to??? This is not even mentioning the fact that if I tried to find information about Chair Design by the "type-in" method, how screwed up things could get....

    So you know what would happen....People would probably (eventually) find a site related to "Chair Design" and make it a favorite......those other TLDs will more than likely produce the famous "404 Error" page....in time....

    I wasn't going get into analogies, but I think this will highlight the problem for you.....If you were going to design a website....Would you have links on your page that gave you "one" word....No you have "Home", "News", "Events"....etc, etc....The reasons for doing this are obvious...Now think back to my analogy, "Home", "Home", "Home" (all pointing to different pages, with different content...

    Who is the one with the right answer???..Frankly I won't throw out "flaming" shots, but will let the reader decide...
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    You have a Serious Problem....
    by Gregory_Krajewski on Saturday November 10 2001, @09:30AM (#3531)
    User #2940 Info
    I highly doubt ICANN will listen to me. They have their constinuency members, the DNSO, etc...

    I am someone with a vested interest in the internet, so that does qualify me as someone who can articulate an opinion....Personally I think those who post "anonymously" should not get to even voice an opinion, but this is a free country!

    If you have a problem with that I suggest you take it up with the ICANN board during their next meeting...

    Btw: I am not speaking for dot web or it's supporters here....I am speaking on behalf of those individuals who share my view.....
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Honest Queston: How many new gTLDs do we need
    by Gregory_Krajewski on Saturday November 10 2001, @09:55AM (#3537)
    User #2940 Info
    The "G" is for global.....then obviously TLD is an acronym for Top Level Domain....As opposed to a fourth level domain such as: What.is.your.point?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    I can tell no one read my post.....
    by Gregory_Krajewski on Saturday November 10 2001, @04:26PM (#3587)
    User #2940 Info
    No wonder there is so much miscommunication out there in the world....

    No one is listening....Oh, well...
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Hello.....This domain was not TM'd...it was reg'd
    by Gregory_Krajewski on Sunday November 11 2001, @08:03AM (#3606)
    User #2940 Info
    AFTER THE SUNRISE....Here is the explanation Afilias gave as to why some domain have the "TM" field" completed...
    --------------------------------------------------
    On trademark information ....

    You may notice that some Start-Up names have trademark information which makes them appear similar to Sunrise names. It is important to note that Registrars had the option of submitting trademark field information during the Start-Up period. The Registry did not require this information to be submitted during Start-Up (unlike Sunrise registrations where these fields were mandatory).

    If authorized Registrars submitted information in these fields to Afilias for Start-Up names, they were accepted and processed "as submitted". The information in the WHOIS is exactly as submitted by the sponsoring Registrar.

    On dates ....
    You may find that Start-Up names have creation dates as early as September 12, the date that Afilias opened the registry for registrars to submit pre-registration requests. The "CREATED ON" date corresponds to the date that the registrar submitted their request to Afilias. Afilias processed all Start-Up applications only after the close of the Start-Up period.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Short answer: No
    by Gregory_Krajewski on Sunday November 11 2001, @09:35AM (#3616)
    User #2940 Info
    Do you even no what UDRP is???

    It's for when people have disputes....

    There is no dispute...

    I run a vacation website in the area where Mount Rushmore is located......which more than qualifies me to have the website address....
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    My.Domain.new.net is no different thant myname.tri
    by Gregory_Krajewski on Monday November 12 2001, @07:54AM (#3663)
    User #2940 Info
    There is no relevance here...
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • 18 replies beneath your current threshold.

  • 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