RE: [wg-b] RE: [wg-c] URGENT: Moratorium on all additions to con

["William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>]

On 23-Nov-99 Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> Harold, you know that I agree with you that the study is still needed.
> Even
> a survey report on the technological capabilities would be extremely
> useful.
> It should cost much less and could be a useful start.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Vixie and his group conduct just such
a technological study on this issue already? 

 
> Marilyn
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harold Feld [mailto:hfeld@mediaaccess.org]
> Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 9:47 AM
> To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> Cc: 'rmeyer@mhsc.com'; 'matt hooker'; ga@dnso.org; 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-b] RE: [wg-c] URGENT: Moratorium on all additions to
> confusing GTLDs and ccTLDs Required.
> 
> 
> 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
>> >

--
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934