RE: [wg-review] domain names and easy access to public info

["bukko" <bukko@od2.com>]

Whatever the guidelines, there will always be those who get it wrong or just
plain ignore the rules.
This doesn't change the fact that more TLDs will lead to more freedom.

What would be the problem of allowing *any* new TLD?
ICANN, or whoever ends-up being in charge, could license anybody who wants
to be start a new TLD on a year-by-year basis for, say, $20,000 a year, with
no additional fees.
It would then be up to the operator to fix a yearly rate for registration,
who could easily make back the $20,000.
An ICANN funded watchdog could be set up to monitor the activities of and
complaints about the operators, who could in the worst case have their
licenses immediately suspended and awarded to someone else, or possible just
not renewed at the year-end.

What would be the problem with this model? More availability of domain names
for those who want them, more money for ICANN - - who loses? Only the
existing domain-name hoarder who's ransom would have to fall.

bukko

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
Luca Muscarà
Sent: 16 January 2001 04:22
To: Michael Sondow; wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-review] domain names and easy access to public info

Hi members,

in this WG or elsewhere I have not read yet anything concerning a
particularly
useful social character that the TLD system carries with itself, seen in
particular from the point of view of how the use of a specific name could
affect the cognitive maps of an internet navigator.
It is easy to get a usable map of the world if the main division of the
cyberworls correspond to something easy to identify.
Adding seven or more domain names will change that map, probably with many
advantages, but the original function of allowing-- to a certain
extent--identification of the real players we know in the real world in the
cyberworld--should be preserved in order to help people getting access to
their relevant information.
I think that one of the conditions that any new gTLD should meet is the
following:
it would need to be easily understable by anybody as the original gTLDs
concept implied:
it should be easy for people to identify what kind of area or social
organization it refers to, items, people, entities or other?

An example: will the .name include only the actual first and family names of
real people as much as .geo would be just for georeferenced data? and what
if
you allow in .name also fiction names or a corporate names?
If .com & .biz  cover just the same areas of business operations, will their
use show only the epoch of penetration of the internet in the company (and
viceversa) started ? before or after Y2K ?
What would be considered a .museum ? Will it include also libraries,
collections, galleries, archives ? etc.
I am afraid that these reflections are probably out of place and out of date
and I apologise for the simplicity.
I would really appreciate if somebody would take a minute to point me to
relevant documents on this subject.

Maybe we should now focus on having a real consensus on where the debate
will
continue tomorrow with the same people of this list.
Or maybe somebody could kindly remind us where do we get the full list of
the
members of this WG and their addresses?
thank you and hope to read you then...

Regards,

Luca Muscarà

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html