[wg-c] Lists of new TLDs

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

Craig supplies a useful list of TLD requests submitted to IANA. There is another,
more extensive attempt to allow domain name customers to vote on new TLDs
administered by Name.space. Here is the URL:
http://vote.global-namespace.net/cgi-bin/vote.pl

You can see that whereas IANA's list consists of only about 100 requests
submitted by prospective suppliers, the name.space list incorporates thousands of
votes from end users that have been accumulated over a period of about a year and
a half. The name.space list is also more recent than the IANA list.

Here is the top 20 in name.space's list, and the number of votes it has received.
You can also view the top 50 or 100 at the URL above.

SPACE  2794
WEB      2049
ART       1089
DESIGN  720
MEDIA    675
SHOP       651
SEX          647
INFO        646
TRAVEL   616
ZONE       603
MUSIC     561
FIRM        540
INC           524
ONLINE   398
MAG         358
LTD           356
ARTS         353
WORLD    337
HOME       336
MAIL         333

Both lists are of course imperfect samples, and neither represents "the
community," which is a term that has no validity in this context anyway. There
are completely separate linguistic communities, including those with non-roman
alphabets, that are entirely unrepresented. Some CORE names made it onto this
list, but you will notice, I think, more creativity in this list than in the IAHC
list. The simple fact is that no one knows which names the public wants or will
use, and the market should sort that out.


Craig Simon wrote:

> There were other public processes. Here's a list of all the TLD requests
> sent to IANA submitted by more than one person, sorted by descending
> count. (from
> http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/00990.html )
>
> 7       .INC
> 6       .WWW
> 6       .XXX
> 5       .BIZ
> 5       .SEX
> 5       .WEB
> 4       .ALT
> 4       .ART
> 4       .FAM
> 4       .LAW
> 4       .MED
> 4       .PER
> 4       .USA
> 3       .CORP
> 3       .ENT
> 3       .EUR
> 3       .INFO
> 3       .ISP
> 3       .LTD
> 3       .MALL
> 2       .AIR
> 2       .CAR
> 2       .ETC
> 2       .EURO
> 2       .GROUP
> 2       .GVT
> 2       .HOME
> 2       .HOT
> 2       .IND
> 2       .MEDIA
> 2       .MUSIC
> 2       .NEWS
> 2       .NPO
> 2       .PHONE
> 2       .PUB
> 2       .SRV
> 2       .TRADE
> 2       .UNI
>
> This is one useful indicator of community preference for one new gTLD
> over the other. By the way, with regard to what I was saying about .sex
> before, and .xxx by implication, is that I posit the following rule: Any
> gTLD submission reported by Jon Postel at the above-mentioned site
> should be added to a shared registry system if that model is chosen.
> This would be after contended gTLDs are added, and before new
> submissions are solicited.  I presume that registrars would be allowed
> to decide whether or not they will be selling into those gTLDs, but the
> registry would have to have it, based on the algorithm of making sure
> all the names in Postel's list be added. Using that list cools the
> political hot potato.
> <Shameless plug for consideration of meta issues>
>
> I think we can all admit that nothing is technically broken with the
> DNS. There is no technical reason to add gTLDs.
>
> And there is no technical reason that many hundreds or few thousand
> can't be added. There is certainly no technical reason that proprietary
> gTLDs can't be added to the root, and the same is probably true of a
> CORE-style registry, though that technology remains unproven.
>
> The problems are social and adminstrative.
>
> The idea in my view is to add so many gTLDs that the price for new SLD
> registrations will be driven down.
>
> I like the idea of shared gTLDs because I think the concept of name
> portability protects the consumer, while dispersing the profit-making
> opportunities of the domain name market more widely among registrars. I
> expect there can be many more registrars than gTLDs, amd that
> registrations service will become just one of many values that ISPs can
> offer to their customers.
>
> But, based on the sentiment that it's better for a system to be allowed
> to grow rather than be capped forever, I would prefer to see proprietary
> gTLDs added rather than none at all.
>
> The more I mull these things over, the more I see how the trademark
> industry has impeded expansion of the system because of its fears that
> the DNS expansion will undermine power of branding. I think these fears
> are exaggerated. We make the same mistake if we try to brand gTLDs with
> some sort of category requirement. Self-selection works fine.  The DNS
> is not a directory service.
>
> <Shameless plug/>
>
> So, if ICANN can get its act together and properly constitute itself in
> an open and accountable way, and you folks decide to accept my proposed
> compromise, we could have a big launch for .web on say, Jan 1, 2000 zero
> hour GMT. IODesign's present cusotmers (all those registered as of now,
> please, and not between now and the end of the year) would get a free
> pass into ICANN's root, and IODesign as registrar would get a 30 day
> headstart as the exclusive .web registrar before the other ICANN
> registrars kick in.  Chris hosts a big bash for us all New Year's eve in
> SLOtown and everybody is all smiles on the front page of the New York
> Times New Year's Day. How does that sound?
>
> Don't say I don't believe in happy endings.
>
> Craig Simon