<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Dear Barry,<br>
<br>
oh what a great trip into memory lane! Thank you! One thing you did
not mention, though, is that back then there were Usenet demi-gods
who used to be able to keep the whole thing sane and together. When
these retired/moved on, Usenet started declining. I don't think
there are net demi-gods in domain names, are there?<br>
Kindest regards,<br>
<br>
Olivier<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 02/01/2022 07:31, Barry Shein via
At-Large wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:25041.18111.336993.6335@gargle.gargle.HOWL">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Re: TLDs and communities
From: Evan Leibovitch via At-Large <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org"><at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org></a>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I witnessed first hand the hopelessness and futility of those who believed
that a TLD could define, sustain or create a community.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Back in the days of Usenet, the 1980s mostly, which had millions of
users and eventually over 100,000 discussion topics the issue of when
to add a new topic was a constant, lively issue.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet</a>
Discussion groups were "tree" organized so you had rec for recreation,
rec.sports, rec.sports.baseball, etc.
For a while there were only eight top level topics (rec, comp
[computer], talk, sci, ...), plus many regional (ne for new england,
uk, and so on), and quite a few informal, unblessed top level topics
such as "alt" which existed outside the mainstream governance.
(Note: There was earlier history, net.*, but it adds nothing to this.)
It should sound a little familiar.
How were new topics created?
By an open discussion and vote on certain designated administrative
discussion groups. Other than that there really was no governance
structure.
An important bit of wisdom gained was that you could not create
interest in a topic by creating a group for it.
The most compelling reason to create a new group was to split off
discussion traffic which was overwhelming another, more general group.
So rec.sports.baseball might sprout rec.sports.baseball.worldseries
because the former was being overwhelmed with world series discussion.
We knew from experience back then, the 1980s, that you could not
create interest or community by creating a topic category for it.
Attempts failed repeatedly until it became a governing principle.
You (dear reader) may find that unintuitive but that was what actual
experience taught us.
P.S. An expression that arose from Usenet was "Eternal September":
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September</a>
In simple terms students, millions, arrived every September, got
access to Usenet, and began imagining what the rules for things like
newsgroup creation were or ought to be. Every year.
Then AOL added Usenet and it became "Eternal September", the academic
schedule no longer throttled the flood of new accounts.
Unfortunately some of these TLD discussions have that "Eternal
September" feel to them.
"I don't want to hear YOUR opinion! I want to hear MY opinon coming
out of YOUR mouth!" -- some wag
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>