RE: [wg-c] URGENT: Moratorium on all additions to confusing GTLDs and ccTLDs Required.

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

I fail to understand how four years of working to this end can be considered
"rushing". Maybe Matt, needs to truely acknowledge that he is indeed new to
this arena. Since we've begun down this road, IOdesign is in hibernation,
PER is defunct, and MHSC and CORE are at low-ebb, all because of EXCESSIVE
delays in this process. A number of us would not be willing to entertain
more delays. Yet, Matt, a ccTLD holder, says we're rushing? No, I don't
think so. Methinks that the man is excessively transparent.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of matt
> hooker
> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 1999 5:55 PM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Cc: wg-c@dnso.org; wg-b@dnso.org; announce@dnso.org;
> amadeu@nominalia.com; bburr@ntia.doc.gov; apincus@doc.gov;
> eric.menge@sba.gov; edyson@edventure.com; apisan@servidor.unam.mx;
> quaynor@ghana.com; tom.bliley@mail.house.gov
> Subject: [wg-c] URGENT: Moratorium on all additions to confusing GTLDs
> and ccTLDs Required.
>
>
> November 19, 1999
>
> To the ICANN Board of Directors, The entire ICANN Membership,
> the DNSO, the
> General Assembly, Working Group C, all other Working Groups, and to
> everyone, everywhere concerned about allowing the Internet to
> realize its
> fullest potential;
>
> A Proposal for an Immediate Moratorium on the Addition of any New
> gTLDs or ccTLDs; and a Proposal to Restructure the current TLD system.
> by Matthew Hooker. Webmaster@Net-Speed.com, matthooker@hotmail.com
>
> I, Matthew Hooker, am an active participant in the General Assembly,
> as well as Working Groups C and B. I am a recent arrival to
> this process,
> having joined  at the beginning of the recent November 1999
> meetings in Los
> Angeles.
>
> I have found that there is a tremendous push, to approve new gTLD,s
> as quickly as possible, and as many as possible. This push is due
> to ideological, political or financial interests that have nothing
> to do with the real interests of the Internet as a whole. I am
> calling for an immediate moratorium of the approval of new
> gTLDs. This issue needs to have much more debate, with a much greater
> public participation. This debate needs to be publicized.
>
> I will summarize my arguments below as to why no new gTLDs should be
> allowed, as well as my proposal to consider a restructuring of the
> entire gTLD and ccTLD system, which has already become somewhat of a
> free-for-all, and is leading (should more TLDs be introduced) to chaos
> and anarchy.
>
> In short, I want the Internet to be all things to all people, but most
> importantly, I want to see an Internet that allows for easy, fast and
> clear and understandable interaction by humans, among humans and for
> humans.
>
> Some potentially fatal mistakes have already been made that I believe
> need to be corrected if the Internet is to reach its full potential.
>
> I realize that many of you reading this have already made up
> your minds that
> you will favor the introduction of new TLDs, and believe that
> you have heard
> all of the arguments before. Please reconsider. I believe what I will
> present here is a compelling argument to allow no new TLDs,
> and indeed
> restructure the present system. This argument has nothing
> whatsoever to do
> with registries, for-profit or not; it has nothing
> ideological, financial or
> political about it. It is for the greater good of the
> Internet as a whole
> and humans everywhere.
>
> At the ICANN, DNSO and working group meetings this November in Los
> Angeles, I was accused, by those I discussed this with, of
> the following
> errors, which I will rebut: being on the "dark side!",
> wanting to turn the
> Internet into a directory, wanting to preserve the current
> power structure,
> wanting to preserve my own financial self interests. (Yes, I
> own a number of
> web sites and domain names which I am developing into web sites and
> businesses.)
>
> I heard many arguments by those supporting more TLDs like: "in every
> revolution there is an overthrow of the existing ruling class", "the
> Internet is controlled by big business and the introduction of new
> TLDs is the only way to change this", "there is too much domain
> speculation and we must introduce new TLDs to reduce or eliminate
> this", "there are no more good domain names available", and "we should
> introduce new TLDs to make more available. Many of the people in
> favor of introducing new TLDs favor an unlimited number of them.
> Regardless of your opinion regarding the veracity of these statements,
> the point is that these statements have nothing to do with the real
> issue that I am addressing: A structure for the Domain Name Service
> ( DNS ) that allows for clear and easy human usage of the Internet.
>
> The DNS is supposed to make the Internet human-friendly or
> user-friendly. Unfortunately, the incorrect implementation of a
> good idea has led to a confusing and hard to use Internet, which
> requires the use of "search engines" and "directories" that are
> very complex, most often don't give the user what they want, and
> take a lot of time to use. Although some may say this current system
> "works", it doesn't work nearly as well as it could or should.
>
> The current system of ccTLDs also has served to severely limit the
> potential and ease of use of the Internet. The Internet can be a truly
> global, easy to use community. It can be all things to all people.
> If text or voice are used to communicate, then the only boundaries
> should be those of language, and machine translation will soon
> eliminate this boundary. Instead of creating such a truly global
> community, we have, with the ccTLDs simply extended the status quo
> of current national, political boundaries to the Internet - the one
> place which could be above all national and political borders and
> boundaries. So, instead of having just 1 global Internet, we really
> have over 250, and many people want to increase this number! Instead
> of having 1 common place where everyone can form a community, we have
> hundreds. Thus for a Spanish speaking person, there are over
> 20 Internets in
> the Spanish language - corresponding to the
> national/political boundaries
> and ccTLDs. For the English speaker, not only are there the various
> english-speaking ccTLDs, but there are also the .COM, .NET
> and .ORG, with a
> huge push to add 6 to 10 more for a "test period" leading to
> hundreds more!
> Just as bad is the fact that these three gTLDs are supposed
> to be used for
> different types of businesses or web sites, whether they be
> for-profit,
> Internet-related, or non-profit; yet these is no way to
> enforce this rule,
> so the rule or guideline means nothing. How absurd.
>
> Instead of bringing the world together, these gTLD and ccTLD
> extensions are
> separating it, mostly for the sake of more money to be made
> and issues of
> control. In addition, there are now a potential of over 250
> homes or web
> sites for any given name, whether it be "Sony" or "GreatCars" or
> "VirtualOffice." This is extremely confusing, and does not
> lead to human
> ease of use, but to chaos.
>
> Ideally there should be just 1 way to find "Sony" or "GreatCars" or
> "VirtualOffice", to take 3 examples. Why? So humans can use
> the Internet
> quickly, easily and understandably, without the usage of bots, search
> engines, etc. One of the members of the Names Council responded to my
> argument with "let the search engines do it" (referring to
> finding a site or
> some information for a user). However this is not the best way.
>
> Search engines should not be required for a user to go to
> Sony's site. In
> addition, search engines, which will have to be used, of
> course, for many
> things, and which can provide an excellent service and function, are
> for-profit businesses with agendas of their own. Obviously
> there will be one
> "Sony" and one "GreatCars" in each language. This is as it
> should be, for a
> common language is necessary for comprehension or
> communication at the
> present time. But there should only be 1 in each language, otherwise
> confusion sets in. Adding any new TLDs will make this
> situation even worse.
>
> Many ccTLDs are being used globally, so the problem is
> getting worse by the
> month. For those interested in adding new gTLDs, I would
> respond that there
> already are many of them, and at least dozens more to come:
> the ccTLDs
> which, of course also can function as gTLDs. A partial
> current list of
> ccTLDs acting as gTLDs:
>
> - .NU - this means "nude in French and Portuguese, and "now"
> in Swedish, and
> some other Scandinavian languages, and "in a jiffy" in
> German, just to name
> a few. It is also being used as a general gTLD.
>
> - .MD - this is being used for medical related sites for
> english speakers.
>
> - .TO - this is being used as a general gTLD. It also has meanings in
> several languages.
>
> - .AM - this is being used for radio and music sites.
>
> - .ID - I spoke with a member from Indonesia who informed me
> that big plans
> were underway to market this ccTLD as a gTLD for information or
> identification.
>
> How long before other ccTLDs with extensions that have a
> meaning in one or
> more languages are used globally? There are already hundreds
> of approved
> gTLDs among the ccTLD's. To add more is absurd, confusing and
> leads to more
> chaos.
>
> The aspect of the Internet that has the most to do with
> almost all users is
> the name associated with a web site. We humans use names, not
> numbers, and
> that is why a particular name should not be duplicated on the
> internet.
>
> Having "extensions" like .MD, .COM, .NET, .ID, ... only makes
> things more
> confusing, and web sites more difficult to find for humans.
> The addition of
> more gTLDs like .firm, .shop, etc will make things far worse
> for humans. We
> humans remember a name, not a name plus an extension. It is
> easy to remember
> GreatCars, to use a random example, and to remember what the
> name means, and
> what going to that site will give one. These three items are
> what, to the
> vast majority of people, the Internet should do. Obviously,
> the Internet can
> and will do and be much more than this, but these three functions are
> necessary, and easy to achieve. To have to remember and differentiate
> between GreatCars.com, GreatCars.net, GreatCars.org, GreatCars.nu,
> GreatCars.to, GreatCars.ID, GreatCars.co.uk, and any other
> extensions, of
> which there are more all the time, is too difficult to do for
> humans, and
> defeats a primary purpose of the Internet, and leads to confusion.
>
> To add a .firm, .shop, .biz, etc. will only make the matter
> much worse. (I
> use GreatCars as a random example and have no connection with
> it (or should
> I say them! - my point exactly!) whatsoever, nor do I even
> know of its
> existence.)
>
>
> REBUTTAL OF OPPOSING ARGUMENTS
>
>
> I would like to rebut a few opposing arguments before I
> explain how we can
> improve the current system.
>
> The argument that there are no more available good domain
> names, so we
> should add new gTLDs. Adding new gTLDs will only serve to
> confuse the user
> and make it harder for the user to find what they are looking
> for. Using our
> example, in addition to GreatCars, there can also be
> FineCars, SuperCars,
> GoodGars, BestCars, FastCars, HotCars, GreatNewCars, GreatUsedCars,
> GreatCarsOnSale, GreatCarsNow, GreatAutos, GreatJeeps,
> GreatAutomobiles,
> GreatVehicles... the list goes on and on... also:
> LosAngelesGreatCars,
> GreatCarsLA, GreatCarsNY, GreatCarsLondon, GreatCarsBombay,
> ... There are
> enough english combinations of potential auto sites for
> everyone. True,
> there is only one exact "GreatCars", and if that is the name
> you want, then
> buy it. If you can't afford it, find another name, but not another
> "GreatCars" that will only serve to confuse the public and users.
>
> The argument that registrars won't be able to make money on new TLDs.
> Too bad. The Internet being all that it can be, and reaching
> its potential,
> is more important.
>
> Obviously, it is going to be difficult, because of existing
> parties, with
> their own interests, to bring the DNS system back to where it
> should be -
> just 1 truly global internet. But this is possible to do, and
> in a later
> e-mail  I will address and provide a solution to this task.
> Impossible is
> not part of my vocabulary.
>
> For the moment, however, it is imperative that we not give in
> to a small
> group of people who have selfish political, financial or ideological
> agendas, and who wish to add more gTLDs to the already
> confusing, and ever
> increasing amount and range of TLD being used.
>
> We must put an immediate moritorium on the addition of any new gTLDs.
> There is no consensus in Working Group C. I am adamently
> opposed to any more
> TLDs. I believe I am not the only one. This, and other
> working groups have
> been operating without any real public participation or
> publicity, and the
> stakes are too high for this to remain so.
>
> The ability of the Internet to reach its full potential depends on us
> allowing it to have a structure that can best enable human
> use. We have
> already gone far in the wrong direction, and adding more TLDs
> will increase
> the problem. Let's put a stop to all this, and then give
> ourselves some time
> to fomulate a plan to correct the errors which have been made.
>
> For the sake of the Internet,
>
> Matt Hooker
> Webmaster@Net-Speed.com
> matthooker@hotmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>