[wg-c] non-member submission, reposted for Roberto Gaetano

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

From: R.Gaetano@iaea.org
To: matthooker@hotmail.com, ga@dnso.org
Cc: wg-c@dnso.org, [rest snipped]
Subject: RE: [ga] URGENT: Moratorium on all additions to confusing GTLDs a
	nd ccTLDs Required.
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 08:46:41 +0100

I have a different URGENT proposal.

End the de-facto moratorium on the addition of new gTLDs that has been going
on.

Regards
Roberto


> -----Original Message-----
> From: matt hooker [mailto:matthooker@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, 22 November 1999 2:55 AM
> 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: [ga] 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
>