[comments-gtlds] ISOC's 7 TLDs...

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

@@@@@@@@ http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Archives/msg00515.html

From: "Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>

Why should they go away? They have a vested interest in seeing that
the 7 (or 8) new TLDs they proposed get added to the roots:  Namely,
because they've already presold the namespace in those potential TLDs."

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

I do not see Don Heath or the other Internet Society leaders
posting comments that they still are interested in new TLDs.
They now seem to be more interested in the address allocations.
They seem to have lost interest in their IAHC approach.

http://www.iahc.org/draft-iahc-recommend-00.html

Their report is several years old. They did not meet any of the
deployment schedules that they claimed they would meet. If
you recall, in the Summer of 1996, the ISOC Board instructed
Jon Postel to develop a business plan for the 150 TLDs he
suggested should be entered based on months of input from
companies ready at that time to enter the business.

@@@ http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/mtg09.html

"Resolution 96-05. International Top Level Domains

RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees of the Internet Society endorse in
principle the proposal "New Registries and the Delegation of International
Top Level Domains", dated June 1996 by Jon Postel, and approve the role
assigned to the Internet Society in this proposal. The Board authorises
Postel, in his IANA role, to refine the proposal to include a business plan
for review and approval by the Board.

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

It took 2 years to go from 150 to 7. I am not sure those 7 make sense
now or that they ever did.

.firm
.store
.web
.arts
.rec
.info
.nom

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

Note, the 7 proposed TLDs are not all at the top of the list of
2,048 DLDs shown here. Clearly, people prefer a different selection.
.INC is the most desired.

http://www.icann.org/comments-mail/icann-current/msg00342.html

Also, note that people are free to register names such as
NAME-FIRM.COM and they work today. It is too bad that the
ISOC Board did not follow through with its agreement to endorse
the 150 new TLDs in 1996. If they had, I bet we would have much
more diversity now and more companies innovating in the
domain name business. As it stands, the industry has been set
back at least 5 years, thanks mostly to the ISOC.


Jim Fleming