Re: [wg-c] Eureka?

["Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>]

> That is a given, however your absolute views don't translate well from the
> theoretical to the practical. An individual TLD is a scarce resource as
> there can only ever be one .com, .site or .detector. Within those
individual
> TLDs there can only existing one SLD combination.

So what? There can be only one McDonald's and only one Burger King,
but there can be any number of burger joints. There can also be any
number of TLDs. The analogy stands.

> I don't disagree with creating a bazillion TLDs - as long as the process
by
> which they are created is sane, reasonable and equitable for as much of
the
> Internet population as possible.

Then we agree.

> Drugs.com is a perfect example of this - it
> is much more desirable to the market than drugs.to or any other drugs.tld
> combination.

This is, on its face, false. I submit that Drugs.web (or, more semantically
proper, Drug.Web) is more valuable than Drugs.Com.

> hotdog.com may be very valuable to Sausage Software, hotdog.on.ca may be
> very valuable to a street vendor in Toronto - but the existence of one
does
> not drive the value/price of the other - in any way, shape or form.

Again, we disagree. hotdog.com, hotdot.web, hot.dog, and hotdot.stand
dilute each other's value.

> I'm quoting this again to focus on another bit of your logic. Your
statement
> that "the value of computers.com approaches nil when there are 300 other
> TLDs
> that can register the same name." is ridiculous. The value of
computers.com
> remains the same because there is no other TLD that can register the same
> SLD/TLD combination. The only force that can affect the market value of
> computers.com is the market itself. To suppose that additional TLDs will
> create price movement in .com is a purely theoretical arguement that you
> have absolutely no hard data to support.

If you can claim the intrinsic value in a "dot-com" then I can claim the
very same value in a "dot-web." From that, it follows that the sum value
across the set drops as the set approaches a reasonably large number.
In this case, I'd argue that the number is close to 100. Some have said
300 and others upwards of 1000.

But, again, the argument still holds.

Christopher