Re: [wg-c] new TLDs

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On 22 December 1999, "Sportack, Mark A, CSCIO" <msportack@att.com> wrote:


>I believe that was called "sarcasm". 
>
>Martin puts forth a legitimate idea, one with highly localized significance,
>and was rewarded for his efforts with ridicule. Please, let's focus on
>issues, and not attack the people! 
>
>A much more productive thread might be to explore why highly-specific
>mnemonic namespaces are so unpalatable. 

Even better, I'd ask that we break it down in the following way:

1)  Merit of chartered/sponsored TLDs, irrespective of actual TLD label,
    irrespective of actual business model, irrespective of administration,
    or who can make how much off of it.  Just whether or not a chartered/
    sponsored TLD would be a benefit to the Internet.

2)  Merit of various TLD labels.  Personally, as I've mentioned before,
    I don't care what they are.  They're arbitrary.  They can be random
    letters for all I care.  If you market it properly, it shouldn't 
    matter.  It's popularity is what you make it.  But people are going
    to bring it up, so let's discuss it as a seperate issue, apart from
    chartered/sponsored issues.  Besides, it cuts into our productivity
    no matter what we decide.

3)  Merit of "top-down" vs. "bottom-up" charters, as Karl framed it.
    I see no problem with both, and I do wish people would stop 
    polarizing these things into a characterization where there is all or
    none.  There's no scarcity whatsoever, except ***what we create***.
    We can have as many or as few TLDs, registrars, and registries as
    we want.  We can have as meaningful or as random a string of letters
    in a TLD as we want.  It's all arbitrary, and none of it precludes
    any other approach.  They can all be implemented side-by-side.
    And none of this precludes the introduction of "free-for-all"
    unrestrained TLDs, either.

Too many of you are discussing this from the standpoint of, "this will
or will not make money," or "That'll never fly; it's not profitable."
That's not the issue.  You can all go bankrupt for all I care.  The issue
here is what's good for the Internet and everyone in the world, not what's
good for your bottom line.  Please at least pay lip service to that even
if you're going to continue trying to figure a profit angle from it.

-- 
Mark C. Langston
mark@bitshift.org
Systems Admin
San Jose, CA