Re: [wg-c] more on non-shared gTLDs

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

Rick, you've hit the nail on the head.
This is the fundamental flaw in the .naa proposal and some of the other
"sponsored" TLD proposals that address miniscule populations of registrants.

A .mus or .naa would be fine if we were in the process of authorizing hundreds
or thousands of TLDs. In an environment of artificial scarcity, restricted to
only 6-10, it makes no sense to authorize TLDs that will receive, at most, a
few hundred registrations. Indeed, it would be obscene for ICANN, after such
massive labors, to give birth to such insignificant mice.

I suspect that some of the IP constituency people and their apologists (e.g.,
Kent) promote this idea because it is the closest thing possible to not
expanding the name space at all.

Rick H Wesson wrote:

> Does the creation of something like .MUSEUM realy add to the utility of
> DNS or are we looking at DNS's ability to be a really bad directory
> service again?
>
> If our goal is to open the way for popular gTLDs that create more
> "generic" name space then I believe you are making an excelent case not to
> have sparcely populated, no matter the modle, gTLDs as the mere fact
> that the gTLD lends more benifit to the registry than to the general
> internet community. What we are atempting to do is add a greater  and
> more diverse name space not lend greater credibility to any .SOMETHING