Re: [wg-c] Who should vote for new gTLDs

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

Craig Simon wrote:

> As I said before, I support the idea of lots of gTLDs, primarily for the
> purpose of reducing scarcity, lowering price, and, I'll add, educating
> users that there's life after .com.

I wish to amplify the last point and stress its importance.Dot com is not a very "good"
name--its premium is an acquired taste produced by years of artificial scarcity.

End user expectations play an important role in the value of names. It will take users
some time to get used to new gTLDs. If we create 200 new ones and let the market (and
other voluntary means of influence) determine where people register, we will more
quickly break the user psychology that props up the dominance of dot com. We send a
strong message that a domain name is nothing more than a semantically meaningful string
and not an index or directory of the Internet.

On the other hand, a limited number of alternatives (5 or 6) creates an economic and
semantic oligopoly. It reinforces, rather than undermines, the notion that one can
"guess" where to find a domain, thereby exacerbating domain name disputes.

A large number also undermines Craig's assertion that certain strings will be
intrinsically valuable. I don't agree with his analysis. If there is dot sex and nothing
else, then the TLD gains value. If there are 10 or fifteen other alternatives, including
dot porn, dot xxx, and other four-letter words that I refrain from using here, the
"intrinsic" advantage of dot sex disappears.