Re: [wg-c] New gTLDs and ISPs (was: URGENT . . . )

[Harold Feld <hfeld@mediaaccess.org>]

A few comments-

"Sportack, Mark A, CSCIO" wrote:

> My second comment was to support the findings of IBM, by stating that AT&T
> has conducted anthropological studies that demonstrate an increased level of
> user confusion as the number of TLDs increases. The point of diminishing
> returns is 3. Milton, if you would like a personal explanation of how this
> is different from your bad analogy, please feel free to contact me directly.
> I'd be happy to educate you. Tony, at no time did I state that users
> couldn't remember more than 3: to state that I did is incorrect, misleading,
> inflammatory, and adds to the already horrendous noise-to-signal ratio that
> this list incurs.
>

First, do you have a cite to the study you mention.  A url is preferable,
but I would like to examine the underlying study.

Second, what did the study purport to show/prove?  That people get confused
if the number of TLDs increases?  Even if true, why should this affect whether
we *allow* new TLDs to come to market?

If people find them confusing, they will not use them.  Alternatively, clever
fellows
such as RealNames will develop means to help help people navigate.  We see this
already today.

That people are moving away from "yourcompany.com" has been true since
"delta.com" lead to a company few people were looking for, but with just
as much right to use the name.  (People still try this method, since there
is no cost to taking a few quick guesses before using a search engine, but
no one has yet given up on the Internet or ecommerce as a result of not
finding their desired site on the first try.)
Indeed, recent studies would indicate that issues such as privacy and security
are
what keep people from using the Internet for ecommerce (if that is the measure
we care about).
"Confusion" does not seem to be listed as a compelling reason.

So again, even if more than 3 TLDs is "confusing," what does this mean and how
does it jeopardize the "Internet?"  As a business, it either works or it
doesn't.

Nor am I clear myself why this is different from the current situation in
long distance carriers, where we have what Scott Adams referred to as
a "confusopoly," i.e., a plethora of providers offering varying terms that
are difficult to distinguish.  Yet despite this confusion factor, rates have
consistently
declined for long-distance calls.

Why shouldn't we let Internet users have more choices?


>
> My third comment was to point out that, during the last few months in which
> I've lurked in this working group, I've noticed a disturbing trend: there
> has been no attempt at understanding the operational impacts of namespace
> expansion on the Internet.

Well, a couple of us have asked, and I'll ask again.  What negative consequences

do you forsee?  The following evidence suggests strongly that there are
no negative operational impacts:

1) Jon Postel's initial proposal appears to have been to include up to 150 new
TLDs.  He did not seem bothered by possible negative operational consequences.

2) We have added 250 or so ccTLDs, with calls for more to be added.  Yet these
have not
engendered any negative operational consequences, despite steadily increasing
registration
in ccTLDs.

The best answer I have heard for negative consequences is: we don't know, so go
slowly.
O.K., 6-10 is pretty slow (especially when compared to Postel's original 150.)

> Virtually all comments have been avariciously,
> selfishly, or academically motivated, with no regard for the actual effects
> that recommendations will have on the Internet, or its broad base of diverse
> users. My suggestion was to focus on how to best serve the Internet's user
> community. All of its users, not just one or two constituencies.

Well, leaving aside that the expressed characterization violates your own
rule about taking the high road here in WG-C, I confess to some concern
with this attitude.  History teaches us that those who wish to serve The People
(here The Internet Community) usually do not do to well by the people who
are purportedly so served.

Generally, in a free market society, we let people try to sell whatever they
want and people either use it or don't.  Why isn't it the same here?


>
> My personal suggestion would be to endorse two priorities:
>
> 1) Recommendations made by WG-C must not adversely affect the ubiquity of
> the Internet (no logical partitioning should result from any namespace
> expansion).

I'm not sure what this means?  Do you mean deployment of services?
Open architecture?  That mail from any person can reach any other person?
We shouldn't overpower routing tables?  What?


>
> 2) Recommendations of the WG-C must not compromise the usability of the
> Internet for any of its constituencies. This includes end-users and ISPs.
>

The difficulty with this is that it has a rather paternalistic flavor.
If your concern (as seems indicated by the above) is that the
average end-user is just going to be too confused to use the Internet
effectively if we add more TLDs, than I would reject the principle.
People deserve choices.

To me, this arguement is rather like the arguement made by
the cable companies that consumers will just find it ever so much
easier to subscribe if they don't have a choice of ISP, or that
it is so much easier to offer tiers of programing rather than make consumers
chose a la carte cable services, etc.

Free markets and democracy are messy, but seem to produce the best results
for all concerned (even, oddly enough, businesses).

Harold