[wg-c] bounced message, reposted for Ross Rader

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

>From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
>To: "matt hooker" <matthooker@hotmail.com>, <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: Re: [wg-c] URGENT: Moratorium on all additions to confusing GTLDs
and ccTLDs Required.
>Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 23:14:21 -0500
>
>Matt,
>
>If your basic premise were indeed true, then the telephone numbering
>systems in use around the world would have fallen apart a long time ago.
>Your thesis conveniently forgets that a domain name consists of two
>important parts - the TLD and the SLD. The existence of multiple TLDs does
>not lead to a fractured Internet - it simply means that we have more area
>codes to work with.
>
>-RWR
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: matt hooker <matthooker@hotmail.com>
>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>
>Sent: Sunday, November 21, 1999 8:54 PM
>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
>
>
>