[NA-Discuss] New TLDs and Internet users, a match made in, uh, heck

Antony Van Couvering avc at avc.vc
Fri Apr 1 20:02:13 UTC 2011


"If we purport to represent Internet users, we should be hammering on 
stability and predictability, not advocating for hundreds of useless TLDs 
that will just be full of defensive registrations and squats."

If you purport to represent Internet users, you should come up with some evidence of what they want instead of just throwing out your opinions.

Antony


On Apr 1, 2011, at 3:56 PM, John R. Levine wrote:

>> Whatever the success of the past new gTLDs, I don't understand the
>> reasoning behind keeping COM/NET/ORG as the de facto gTLD registration 
>> space in perpetuity, blind to the ever increasing number of new Internet 
>> users.
> 
>> From the point of view of Internet users, the current set of TLDs is 
> consistent and predictable.  If ICANN allows a thousand new TLDs, we will 
> have a mess similar to the mess with registrars, only worse since 
> switching TLDs is a lot harder than switching registrars.
> 
> Registrars range from the stable and honest to the incompetent and 
> criminal.  Nobody can keep track of them all, certainly not ICANN's 
> compliance department, they come and go and sleaze and fail and who knows 
> what else.  Verisign, Afilias, and Neustar may not be my favorite 
> organizations, but at least they are competent and stable.
> 
> I agree that the new TLD process so far has been deeply flawed, but if 
> there were a demand for new TLDs, I would expect at least some evidence of 
> it.  As I've often noted, every new TLD has failed to meet its most 
> pessimistic registration estimates by an order of magnitude, and the only 
> ones with significant uptake are .BIZ and .INFO, which we all know are 
> just clones of .COM and .ORG for people who missed out on the rush the 
> first time.
> 
> Other than IDNs, which I think are adequately addressed by the fast track, 
> the demand for new TLDs is from speculators and reality-resistant 
> marketers, not from users.  There was a brief flicker of hope that some 
> new TLDs might offer security assurances (.bank is the usual example), but 
> the cynical way the HSTLD process turned out put that fantasy to rest.
> 
> If we purport to represent Internet users, we should be hammering on 
> stability and predictability, not advocating for hundreds of useless TLDs 
> that will just be full of defensive registrations and squats.
> 
> Regards,
> John Levine, johnl at iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
> ------
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
> 
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> ------





More information about the NA-Discuss mailing list