Re: [wg-c] new TLDs

["Martin B. Schwimmer" <martys@interport.net>]

You convinced me.  There should be no more TLDs.

At 11:18 AM 12/22/99 -0800, you wrote:
>
>> >But I object to generic words being assigned a priori meanings and
>> >limitations in the domain name system.
>> 
>> What is your objection to .GmbH?
>
>.gmbh is but one form of corporation in one country.
>
>Under the rubric you put forth we'd need here in California alone TLDs to
>cover non-close for-profit corporations, close for-profit corporations,
>non-profit/public-benifit corporations, non-profit/charitable
>corporations, general partnerships, limited partnerships, limited
>liability corporations, sole proprietorships, etc etc.  We'd also need
>categories for corporations chartered by special acts of the legislature.
>
>And then we'd need 49 more variations for the other 50 states.
>
>Then we'ed need to cross-matrix that for corporations that are 501(c) tax
>exempt.
>
>And then we'd need a third dimension about whether they are publicly
>traded and on what exchange...
>
>Then we'd need to do the same for every country in the world.
>
>Then we can start out building a TLD taxonomy for non-commercial entities
>- we'd need a .christian, (do we subdivide that into .baptist, .catholic
>etc?), .mormon, .hindu, .islam ... even perhaps .scientology
>
>What you are doing is isolating one attribute of an entity from a vast set
>of ever-changing attributes (even corporation status can change due to
>mergers or divestatures or simply reformations.)  And then that single
>attribute is elevated above all others and made permanent.
>
>Personally, I feel that top-down chartering of TLDs (as opposed to brand
>building of TLDs) amounts to a quasi-government sponsored label.  It is a
>situation ripe for the development of unnecessary bureaucracies to ensure
>that labeling is "proper" and a situation ripe for abuse, such as payments
>or other compensation for a candidate for inclusion into a prestigious TLD
>to slide past some bothersome fuzzy areas.
>
>I'd leave certification up to certification authorities.  And I'd leave
>the legal liabilities of mis-cerfification to those same certification
>authorities.
>
>		--karl--
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @