Re: [wg-c] new TLDs

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> ok, forget about human semantics.  forget about registrars.  let's allocate
> names like AOL user names, randomly generated, almost mnemonic unique
> strings.

Yes, that is almost exactly the way it should be - the additional part
should be something akin to license plate checking to make sure no
recognizable words are formed.

I'm serious.

That's why I wrote:

> >(As an aside, as a general matter, I don't like increasing the human
> >semantics we put into domain names.  We should use DNS for what it is best
> >- a stable handle system overlaying changable, even dynamic IP addresses.
> >Human semantics should be via lookup engines that deal with attributes
> >that are associated [by other mechanisms] with those handles.)


> Do it by computer.  That would be best for consumers because
> there would be no human infrastructure (read stock holders) to subsidize.

Yes it would be a vast benefit to consumers because that would force
people to do searches based on attributes and do a thoughtful selection
among the results.  It would end the silly game we've been playing of
trying to overlay a geographically and topically structured trade/service
mark regime on top of a worldwide non-topically structured set of domain
names.


> Mr Auerbach, what new gTLDs do you propose and why would they be a good thing?

I'd suggest: a1001, a1002, a2003, ... z9999

There's 25,000 of those.  If we need more, I'd lengthen the numeric part.

I'd create 'em all now and sell 'em by lottery, $100 each, 50 per week
(about 2600/year) for the nearly ten years before they run out.  They'd
have no charter limitations and no operational requirements.

I'd make it so that only individual humans can buy the lottery tickets and
they could buy no more than one per week.  But if a person wins a TLD that
person would be free to license or sell it to another.

I don't know whether the grant of the TLD should be in perpetuity or
subject to revocation or have a limited term of years.


> Why is .gmbh.de preferable to .gmbh?

Because a gmbh is a creature of German law.

Would you think it appropriate for there to be a gTLD that is, in essence,
a shorthand for California-closely-held-for-profit-corporation?

(Considering that California is itself the world's fifth largest economy,
such would be equally as sensible or, to my mind, non-sensible as
Germany's .gmbh as a gTLD.)

		--karl--