Re: [wg-c] Comments?

[Craig Simon <cls@flywheel.com>]

The point is that the cure shouldn't be worse than the diesease.

I made a very specific suggestion in the early days of this list about
starting with .web. That proposal is at
http://www.flywheel.com/ircw/wgc1plan.html. (I think the version in the
wgc-1 archives has fewer typos.) 

Since that idea was so (un)popular, these days my thinking is going in a
very different direction-- .1000, .2000, .1010, .2010, .2020, etc. I'm
only guessing that it's legal (in a technical sense) to start a TLD with
a number. 

I'm not a big fan of the idea of restricted TLDs. How do you pick out
who's in charge, and what deserves to be an rTLD? It seems to me like a
big can of worms. I don't think gTLDs really need a taxonomy, just more
suffixes that people don't have to get forced into using longer and
longer, more convulated SLD names as the existing TLDs saturate.

Craig Simon


Randy Bush wrote:
> 
> > Now, if the powers-that-be judge that additional gTLDs do indeed create
> > serious problems, they should discontinue the process of adding gTLDs
> > until the problem is corrected.
> 
> by that criterion, we should add no more until we recover from the mess we
> have made of the three we have already added.
> 
> i suspect that a lot of the disagreement over how many and when lies in a
> lack of common understanding of what and how.  i.e. please list the proposed
> three to six or whatever proposed new gtlds, what their names are to be, how
> it will be decided who the registries for each are, how it will be decided
> who the registrars for each are, and what the registration rules (i.e. only
> brunette business people in d&b) will be for each.
> 
> randy