| 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This discussion has been archived.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
]
|
| - Confused
by BenEdelman
Wednesday July 03 2002, @04:11PM
|
|
 |
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
|