[comments-gtlds] What is the purpose of new controls where none were needed in the past...

["Jim Fleming" <jfleming@anet.com>]

@@@@@ http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Archives/msg00489.html

From: "Petter Rindforth" <petter.rindforth@enderborg.se> 

The addition of new gTLDs must be made in a very
controlled manner, and that's why it has to be just a few to begin with.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

If you add "just a few" why bother ? Why add any ?

Also, that seems to encourage TM owners to want to
try to grab all instances of their brand with any new name.
Why encourage that kind of demand which is known to
cause cybersquatting which TM people claim to dislike.

What about the existing 250+ TLDs ?
Why aren't people concerned about those ?
Jon Postel added many of those and no one seemed to notice.
Why are people concerned now ?

What about...
http://www.dot.fm
http://www.dot.am
http://here.is
http://www.nic.cc
http://www.nic.io
http://www.nic.st
...to name just a few...

See also http://www.alldomains.com

Also...are people concerned about the thousands of DLDs ?
http://www.icann.org/comments-mail/icann-current/msg00342.html
With DLDs anyone can create a new one and join in with others
that have already create thousands of them. Other than some dots
and dashes, there is no reason why properly designed and developed
DNS software should not preclude this being done at the root level.
Since the DNS software is old and the deployment is poorly
architected, users have gravitated organically to the DLD approach.
That seems to now reduce the need for new TLDs.

If anything, I think TLDs should be reduced to discourage the
continuation of these debates which are mostly the result of
the poorly designed and out-dated DNS system which will
likely be replaced by more modern LDAP technology.

http://www.ldapcentral.com/
http://www.umich.edu/~dirsvcs/ldap/doc/
http://www.critical-angle.com/ldapworld/ldapfaq.html
http://www.openldap.org/
http://www.emailman.com/ldap/public.html


Jim Fleming