Suggestion

["Leo Smith" <barter@ntplx.net>]

>: > davidk@ISI.EDUwrote:
>: > The trick is to use meaningfull names. .SEX is a nice example of such
a
>: > name. You can be sure that many people don't want to be associated
with
>: > such an gTLD while others do want to be associated with it.
>: > 
>: > The problem with .COM and .NET was that they are *not* meaningfull so
>: > nobody gets a feeling that they are registering at the wrong place. 
>:  David Collier-Brown replied:   I quite agree.
>
Suggestion: To satisfy the needs of both the Internet User and the For
Profit Registry, why not create a registry system that offers the
registrant a choice between FREE registration for a nondescript gTLD such
as .com, .inc, .biz, or .corp, versus a $$$ amount for a descriptive TLD,
such as .law, .legal, .atty, .medic, .music, .sport, .sex, .gas, .oil,
.chem., .steel, .iron, etc.
IAHC or CORE could come up with a set of 3 to 5 generic NON-DESCRIPTIVE
TLDs for universal, FREE registration.
If the descriptive TLDs were awarded on an exclusive licensing agreement,
with all other CORE members as sublicensees, and if all nondescriptive TLDs
were available for free, then a law firm could choose between lawfirm.biz
at NO COST, or lawfirm.law for $500 a year. Given the choice between the
two, I believe that many law firms would rather pay $500 a year for .law
than to have a common, nondescriptive TLD like .biz. Given an exclusive
license for .law, an a business might decide to risk capital investment
needed for startup and operation, based on the projected demand for .law,
and yet still offer free service for those wanting a nondescript TLD.

Does this solve the potential abuse problem that some see with exclusive
licenses?