Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names

["Bret A. Fausett" <baf@fausett.com>]

> 1. We do believe that the assumption that all gTLDs will/should stand for
> something is valid. The alternative is to not bother with a gTLD and use
> only the IP address. The moment you adopt the idea of gTLDs the net user
> will believe they stand for something. To give anything a name is to endow
> identity. If anyone believes in a system that does not endow identity they
> should argue for IP address only.

I think this statement as phrased unfairly merges the idea of "identity"
with "memorability."

A new gTLD might be beneficial not because it denotes something specific,
but because it is easy for users to remember (.zzz, .123, .web, for
instance). Under the proposed principle, ".zzz" is a meaningless domain
name, even though it has the obvious benefit of being easy to remember.

I see no reason why gTLDs that have a specific identity can't coexist with
gTLDs that are meaningless (or simply memorable). Even the meaningless gTLDs
might take on a community identity over time (depending on the marketing and
the users who congregate to them), but if we held out "identity" as a
prerequisite, they would never be added.

For those gTLDs that do purport to have a specific identity, however, I
agree with you though that they should not be deceptively marketed and that
the identity should be meaningful and enforced. But I wouldn't support using
"identity" to exclude other models.

         -- Bret