Re: Monopoly/Ologopoly

[Hank Nussbacher <hank@ibm.net.il>]

At 11:24 PM 12/23/96 PST, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>>Quoting the document:
>>
>>   These new gTLD's will consist of letter strings of three to
>>   five letters each. IAHC has also decided that each gTLD
>>   should have general, contextual meaning, i.e. the gTLD
>>   should suggest a connection with the Internet, with business
>>   or with personal uses.
>>
>>My personal judgement is that .MEDICAL doesn't fit the criteria in
>>several respects.
>
>Why is the IAHC choosing the new gTLDs in the first place? This makes
>no sense in that they have no financial stake in those gTLDs. The
>registrars are the ones who will have to develop, market and sell
>the gTLDs, shouldn't the registrars select them?

Taking a fediciary responsibility for the Internet, I would prefer that
there be some sense and logic to the name structure.  I am not in favor
of .hank or even .www.  5 years ago we would all be clamoring for a
.gopher TLD.  10 years from now there will most probably be some technology
that make the name WWW or WEB obsolete.  Instead, I prefer names that will
work    for a long time like synonyms for commercial, personal, home,
network, etc.

Marketing and selling gTLDs is not our only concern.  We have to think of
human engineering and how people will be able to conceptualize the gTLDs.  

>
>Frankly, and I believe I speak for many, the IAHC is allocating
>MUCH TOO MUCH decision-making and power to itself. Scale this back
>a bit. The IAHC is supposed to decide the POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
>for this, not make business decisions and selections for the registrars.
>
>--
>Christopher Ambler
>President, Image Online Design, Inc.
>
>
Hank Nussbacher
IAHC member
[The views expressed above are the authors alone and may not reflect
the view of other IAHC members]