Re: [wg-c] Private TLDs

["pg@name-space.com" <pg@name-space.com>]

John Broomfield wrote:

>A while back, only established networks dared request their own SLD. Now
>just about anyone who wants to even have the slightest "serious" look when
>doing business "needs" their own domain name on their business card. (I'm
>not going into debating whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. I'm just
>stating that it is so, the proof being that there are 6million? .com names).
>Entities requesting their own SLD started slow, but now it's really up to
>speed (and accelerating).
>Just about all estimations of growth of ANYTHING on the internet have been
>generally 1-5 magnitudes of order too low, so why not not for companies
>demanding their own private TLDs too?
>Only those that have their own established network need a private TLD...
>sure, same thing a few years ago for private SLDs...
>
>Thing is that once one comapny gets their own TLD (say AOL with ".aol"),
>then others will also want their own TLD, and will rightfully argue that if
>X can have a privatly owned TLD, why can't they?
>
>There's a rather large body of thought that includes developers of BIND that
>says that the DNS can't handle the amount of TLDs that this would bring
>(there is also a body of opinion that says this is b****hit, so take your
>pick), but I won't go into that.
>
>Let's imagine a scenario where every company can get a TLD if they request
>it, and let's imagine that the situation progresses to be more or less what
>we have today with ".com". Then we would cleraly need ONE organisation
>dealing (as NSI deals today) with the allocation of those TLDs, or at least
>a structure similar to a shared registry/registrar setup. Problem is that
>(even if it didn't smash the DNS because of cache problems) the variety that
>we are all arguing for when adding more TLDs would sudenly disappear. Today
>we say that with only ".com" (and net/org) there is not enough. Well, if we
>just chop ".com" off the end, we're back to the same problem...
>
>Why risk the root if it doesn't bring any advantages with it?
>
>Yours, John Broomfield.

A very good point, John, but not a reason to cancel any TLD expansion.

With a well-thought out collection of new TLDs, public and private, not
excluding "serendipitous" ones, such a scenario as ".aol" etc. is unnecessary.
Combine that with seclection policy that considers the "efficiency" to some
degree of a given TLD (i.e. will it somehow serve the greater public good
or serve only small numbers within a single corporation or organization)
and it is clear that a reasonable policy is within reach.

Many have theorized about this but have no day to day experience in
the realities of the market.

Name.Space has been running an (unscientific) online "survey" since 1996
in which netizens may suggest new TLDs, and choose if they wish to have
a "public" or "private" TLD.  After literally thousands of emails, Name.Space
subjectively selected about 524 for activation.
http://namespace.org/gTLDs_req/
(this page is not 100% up to date, but is a representative sample of requests).

After a period of time, if any zone remains unpopulated, it can be "retired".
http://namespace.org/gTLDs_ret/

What we learned from this running market research, is what types of TLDs
people prefer, and the importance of considering cultural and linguistic
conditions
when selecting TLDs.

 We also learned that most people favored "public" TLDs over
"private" TLDs, and that the number of requests for generic words and
strings (i.e. "bbs." or "consulting." ) outnumbered requests for the likes
of "aol." or "ibm" or other private use/owned TLDs.

A list of the presently active and operational new gTLDs is located at
http://vote.global-namespace.org/  ranked in the order of popularity (votes
and population), with links to the email requests received.

Please take some time to review this information that we have accumulated
over the past three years which appears to represent preferences and trends
of the new DNS market.

Paul Garrin
Founder/CEO
Name.Space, Inc.