Re: [wg-c] new TLDs

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

On 22 December 1999, "William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net> wrote:


>
>On 22-Dec-1999 Mark C. Langston wrote:
>> 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.
>
>The bottom line, Mark, is that the bills have to be paid.  And honestly, a
>competitive commercial system is usually the best for the consumer as well.  I
>f
>the concept isn't commercially viable, then it has a very low likelihood of
>succeeding.
>


That's all fine and good.  Did I ever mention that these models are
not being forced on anyone?  Let's ponder a bit:

1)  Chartered/sponsored TLDs are introduced.

2)  A registry is needed to run them.

3)  ...?

Do you think ICANN's going to grab someone off the street and force them
to run a chartered registry?  No.  People who believe they can make a
profit by running such a registry are going to submit bids to do so.

I'm baffled.  Those who favor a bottom-up process are suddenly assuming
that chartered TLDs should or will be run in a top-down manner?  That's
not what I envision, and not the way I proposed it.

And Karl (and William as well):  The existence of a set of chartered
or sponsored TLDs does not impose the necessity for creating similar
TLDs for exery single node in the entire taxonomy of categories in 
every human language.  That's a ridiculous position to take, and an
untenable assumption, since there's a large body of research that
demonstrates it can't be done.

Yes, if chartered or sponsored TLDs are to be created, a line would
need to be drawn somewhere.  Yes, it might exlude those on the outskirts
of falling into the criteria specified by the charter.  So?  I fail to
see the point.  A line is drawn.  Fine.  The purpose is not to be all
inclusive, the purpose is to be exclusive to a large part.  Yes, perhaps
a brokerage house won't be found in .bank.  I care much less about that
than I do about the existence of a porn site in the same chartered TLD,
or the existence of a potential for forward or reverse hijacking, or
for the potential for domain speculation (which won't exist, except
between corporations, since you'd have to meet certain criteria to 
buy an SLD).

These I view as inherently good things.

Let me put it another way:  The free-for-all, anything-goes, pay-now
and-let's-sort-out-the-lawsuits later approach to TLD management has
led us here, today;  it has given us ICANN and the DNSO;  it has put
international trade at odds with the individual.  It's bought us 
a present in which there are no more domain names.  Those that are left
are hotly contested in the media, in the courts, and in public opinion.

Why not at least explore an approach that offers a potential alternative?
One whose road may lead away from the current situation, rather than 
more deeply into it?



...and one more time, because I get the impression people are 
mischaracterizing my stance:  I wholeheartedly support and advocate the
existence of free-for-all TLDs, chartered TLDs, sponsored TLDs.  At the
same time.  I also remain firm on the need to expand the namespace. 
However, that need needs to be balanced against current and possible
future needs.  Those needs indicate to me that we need both controlled
and open TLDs.  However, until we open the door to that possibility,
we'll never know for sure which is better, which will serve the needs
of the Internet better, which will ultimately lead us away from this
morass.  I stand by my proposal, as I outlined it yesterday.  

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