RE: [ga] Re: [wg-c] URGENT: Moratorium on all additions to confusing GTLDs and ccTLDs Required.

[R.Gaetano@iaea.org]

Matt Hooker wrote:
> 
> 11/21/99
> 
> The objection, which follows, to my proposal is a bad one. 
> The analogy is a 
> bad one too. We do not use phone numbers as easily as we use 
> words. We can 
> remember words more easily also. An area code simply adds a 
> few more numbers 
> to a number. A TLD adds 2 or 3 (so far) letters - that may 
> have no meaning 
> of their own, to a word or string of words or letters that 
> has a meaning and 
> is usually easy to remember. People do not try to remember 
> phone numbers 
> with their associated area codes, but rather keep lists or 
> use directory 
> information services. With a domain name and the internet, people can 
> remember names as long as there are not too many TLDs added 
> on to those 
> names. There are already too many TLDs added to the names 
> (SLDs) for easy 
> human use and memory. To add more TLDs will only make this 
> situation worse.


If businesses were afraid of the potential confusion outside .com, they
would not buy other names - the fact that they do, seems to me the proof
that they are confident that users will be able to reach them.

 
> Furthermore, with telephone numbers and area codes, one knows 
> that the area 
> code refers to a specific country, and area of a county. No 
> such information 
> can be derived from and of the gTLDs or many (and, I might 
> add, an ever 
> increasing number) of the ccTLDs. Thus without the associated 
> place, which 
> is what allows humans to sometimes remember area codes, (because they 
> remember the physical location of the phone), it is much more 
> difficult for 
> a human to remember an often meaningless gTLD or ccTLD, along 
> with the 
> domain name itself.


If we apply this reasonment about area codes to the DNS, it should follow
that business should use only ccTLDs, the equivalent of country/area code,
and that gTLDs should be discontinued because "confusing", and "difficult to
remember".

This proposal may have the advantage of clearness, but I doubt that will be
endorsed by DN holders ;>).

Also, about area codes, please note that they are becoming increasingly less
usable as identifiers for the physical location of the phone, either because
of splitting of the former areas to accomodate more codes (hear, hear, the
need for more "High Level codes" - does it ring a bell?), or the redesign of
networks.


 To have to choose among 5 or 10 or more 
> domain names 
> which are exactly the same, with the exception of the TLDs at 
> the end of the 
> name is extremely difficult for the human memory and leads to 
> confusion.


In other words, it has been a mistake to add the 888 numbers, because it is
extremely difficult for the human memory to distinguish between the equally
meaningless strings "800" and "888" (and 900, and whatever else may be added
in the future).


 To 
> have to do this for any more than are already in existence - 
> well, most 
> people won't be able to do it at all, and vast confusion will 
> set in. We 
> need to REDUCE the number of TLDs NOT increase  it.
> 

About the need to reduce TLDs, any suggestion for what to eliminate? ;>)


Regards
Roberto


> Matt Hooker
> Webmaster@Net-Speed.com
> matthooker@hotmail.com
> 
> In response to:
> Matt,
> 
> If your basic premise were indeed true, then the telephone numbering
> systems in use around the world would have fallen apart a 
> long time ago.
> Your thesis conveniently forgets that a domain name consists of two
> important parts - the TLD and the SLD. The existence of 
> multiple TLDs does
> not lead to a fractured Internet - it simply means that we 
> have more area
> codes to work with.
> 
> -RWR
> 

> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>