| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
Salon interviews John Gilmore
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 36 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
Agreed that .AERO and .MUSEUM represent an interesting concept that certainly isn't likely to cause much defensive registration and that's also likely to provide a certain value & quality precisely along the lines you describe. 100 more such TLDs make a certain amount of sense, and I wouldn't be surprised to find a growing consensus around such an approach.
But that's just not what Gilmore was talking about & advocating in his interview. He says: "thousands of top-level domains, in which anyone could register a name" (emphasis added). And he subsequently contemplates registrants using one TLD rather than another if a desired domain isn't available in the first TLD attempted. So, as I read the interview, I take Gilmore to be advocating more unrestricted TLDs.
The point I intended to make in my first paragraph is that new unrestricted TLDs seem to tend to have certain problems. fnord is right to point out that restricted TLDs don't seem to have these problems is true, but I don't think this fact gets at the core of my response to Gilmore. If Gilmore wants more uTLDs, and if uTLDs have the problems I flagged, then it seems to me that fnord's listing of the features & benefits of sTLDs (rTLDs? what do we call these? I'm not sure this precisely matches ICANN's sponsored/unsponsored sTLD/uTLD division) doesn't obviously settle the question of whether Gilmore's "1000 new unrestricted TLD" proposal is or is not a good idea.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Restricted TLDs are fine, but Gilmore talks of unr
by edelman@law.harvard.
|
|
|
|
|
"The point I intended to make in my first paragraph is that new unrestricted TLDs seem to tend to have certain problems."
"If Gilmore wants more uTLDs, and if uTLDs have the problems I flagged....."
Ben, please "flag the certain problems that new unrestricted TLD's [would] seem to have" under the assumption that a 1,000 would be in existence. Since your research really can not conclude this because the parameters would be entirely different than the basis of your research, I would be curious to know how it is you are formulating this opinon. Please flag what these problems would seem to be - and the basis for such - given you have provided your opinion correlated to your research.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| - Confused
by BenEdelman
Wednesday July 03 2002, @05:11PM
|
|
|
|
I quite agree that 100's of new uTLDs, even if halfways mnemonically sensible (egs: .web, .shop, .www, .firm), and even if they include speculators and defensive registrations, aren't sustainable. But I'm not sure that that was what Gilmore was advocating. He's been around long enough to remember when comnetorg actually distinguished between entities, that is, when it was a directory system. From my reading he's not talking about 100 .com clones, and if he is, my long time respect for him as a voice of sanity just fell through the floor. rTLDs (which is as good a term as any, and I agree they may not precisely fit ICANN's definition because they would more properly fit on a continuum, it's not black and white) strike me as a win-win for everyone, or at least as close as we will get. If apple.computers doesn't sell books they have no reason to do a defensive registration in apple.books (and wouldn't be allowed to do so). If they do, they have to convince the booksellers association charged with policing the TLD that they have primary rights over some apple grower who sells books. If the booksellers association pays too much attention to IP interests then someone else comes along with .book and that becomes the TLD that people trust. I suspect just about everyone but squatters and big league IP interests would be happy with this, and frankly, those are the two interests now driving DNS policy, and together they are a tiny fraction of those the DNS should serve. But they both wave money, so ICANN listens. That, probably more than anything else, is why ICANN is irretrievably broken, -g
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| - 1 reply 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
|
