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

[Harold Feld <hfeld@mediaaccess.org>]

Last year, Congress alocated $800,000 to perform just such a study.
The "Leahy" study.
Sadly, this study has not yet been perfomed.

Harold Feld


"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:

> Roeland and others,
>
> I know that some believe that we should move forward quickly with multiple
> gTLDs. Not everyone agrees, as you know.  And, one area where I believe
> there is some support for Matt is the point thatmore examination of the
> implications of introducing new gTLDs and the impact on ccTLDs is needed.
>
> My earlier postings called for a very go slow approach overall and more
> thought about implications.  I don't believe that there has been serious
> analysis of the impact of new gTLDS on consumer confusion and ISPs, for
> instance.
>
> We could spend some time productively having an informed discussion on these
> issues and others.
>
> We will continue to have new players in the working groups. Welcome, Matt.
> And others who are joining. We still have a lot of work to do together.
>
> Regards, Marilyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roeland M.J. Meyer [mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 1999 10:11 PM
> To: 'matt hooker'; 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-b] RE: [wg-c] URGENT: Moratorium on all additions to
> confusing GTLDs and ccTLDs Required.
>
> 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
> >