| | 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This discussion has been archived.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.
|
|
 |
"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
]
|
|
|
|
Re: Restricted TLDs are fine, but Gilmore talks of
by RFassett
|
|
|
|
|
On the problem of defensive registrations (to the extent that folks see it as a problem -- i.e. putting .COM holders to some trouble and expense), see the quote from my first message in this thread:
... adding many new TLDs at once may be different from adding just a few at a time -- may have less defensive registrations, in particular, since defensive registrations become excessively costly (and therefore impossible) in a 1000-TLD world.
I take it this is precisely what you're thinking. So it sounds like perhaps we agree.
On the "problem" (again, to the extent that you believe it is one or see it as one) of allegedly relatively low usage of the new TLDs, I wrote:
But if no one is much using .BIZ, as my examination suggests, then what is anyone going to do with TLDs like .w7k or .nuy6? So it's hard to think that new TLDs of this sort will address whatever problems remain with .COM's market power, the single .COM registry, etc.
This still seems to me right -- though I as yet have no particular data to support this claim. Would like to quantify it, and demonstrate its truth or falsity, if I can in some way figure out how to go about doing so.
|
|
|
|
[ 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
|
