|
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
|
