Re: [wg-c] Eureka?

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@ebarn.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.

So what? We are talking about one of the most important issues facing this
WG. Without a determination of value of a TLD, it is impossible to determine
the governance of same. Further, your analogy only makes any sense if you
modify it to say that there can only ever be one burger stand on a given
piece of property at a time.

> > 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.

You make it sound so sinister ;)

>
> > 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.

Your submission is irrelevant to the market's determination. As of today,
the market has determined that drugs.com is worth USD$300,000.00,
drug(s).web on the other hand does not resolve and likely has a market price
approaching zero.


>
> > 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 having a very difficult time understanding your disagreement in light of
your complete lack of a substantive position.

>
> 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.

Again, I make no claims of value - with the exception of that determined by
the market. History has shown that the value of an individual TLD is not
affected by the existence of competing TLDs.

-RWR