Re: Question on New gTLDs ...

[Steve Heflin <steve@itw.net>]

First i will say kudos on your thorough presentation of your thoughts.

The first thing that jumped to my mind was ok - so we do these warranted
new gTLDs such as store BUT couldnt we spend years arguing and finding
more valid gTLDs?  i thik we need to make another step as the originals
was a goo start.  i dont know if we need to be ultimate in deciding the
next ones.  maybe they can be 'nominated' periodically for review.  :/

the next thing that occurred to me is the visions of a potential
nightmare.  yes, there will be chaos whenthe new gTLDs come out - just as
there will be once the new registrars are open for business.  BUT think of
the mess of trying to verify johnnycash.nom? or someone lesser known like
a region celebrity.  HOW does a registrar do that along with other types
of new gTLDs (which wil have their own vices) and not open themselves to
the umpteen lawsuits interNIC has to blow funds on to defend now?

I mean wouldn't it make sense to have Joe's Fabulous Registrar, Inc. only
specializes in .art or .nom or whatever?  then they can focus their
efforts in verifying and locking proper procedure on THAT type of gTLD.

Anyway, i dont disagree.  i only think there may be some more things to
think about, you know? :/

thanks...

On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Infobahn Consulting wrote:

> 
> Hello Everyone;
> 
> I subscribed five minutes ago and I'm going to get the burning issue off
> my chest pronto!
> 
> What has surprised me the most about it to date is the amount of fuss and
> bother being expended by greedy entrepreneurs over the "unfairness" of a
> lottery system and the "unfairness" of the geographical distribution and
> all the rest of it without one drop of ink being spent on the question of
> the choice of new gTLDs themselves.
> 
> I think there are some serious problems with the seven gTLDs under
> consideration. And I think there's too much of a rush to get some new
> gTLDs created just for the sake of expanding the pool and taking the
> pressure off good old ..com. I can appreciate this -- it's long overdue --
> but me must face the reality that the .com space will be a horrendously
> disorganised mess for years to come and that this is no reason to risk the
> same fate for the new gTLDs. What I mean is: .net doesn't mean a net
> anymore and .org is not non-profit anymore and .com may not be for profit
> either, when it comes to that. We need to make some rules and stick to
> them and we need to be prepared to expand those rules as the Internet
> grows, but without ever setting them aside in exasperation.
> 
> Here are the seven:
> .firm, .store, .arts, .rec, .info, .web, and .nom
> 
> Things I like & don't like about the current proposals:
> 
> 1): .store is excellent. It focusses on companies that have goods to sell,
> while many .com sites are corporate information sites and not markets.
> 
> 2): .nom is also excellent, if there are some rules. The registrant must
> be able to demonstrate a clear connection to the name being registered.
> These sites will be fan sites: www.johnlennon.nom or www.celinedion.nom
> and www.toriamos.nom. Currently, because personal names are not
> trademarked, celebrities have no means of wresting personal domain sites
> away from speculators. The .nom should not have any trademarks in it, but
> it will need to rely on some other tests of eligibility in registration.
> 
> 3): .arts is good, but the field of arts may need some definition.
> Obviously, this will be all the online galleries and theatres and museums
> perhaps too? What about publishers in the arts -- borderline, I guess. All
> in all, fairly secure description.
> 
> 4): .rec is okay. I have a personal dislike of this abbreviation, but
> that's just me. I would have preferred maybe ".fun"?? But tourism sites
> would go in here and sports and hobbies of some types.
> 
> 5): .firm is bad unless rules are made for it. What's the difference
> between .firm and .com ?? It invites duplication and redundancy. We must
> devise domain space for each category of site, but we must build only one
> of each, or else it all falls apart. This .firm space should be restricted
> to the professions and business partnerships: lawyers, accountants,
> agencies, consultant firms, advertising agencies, health clinics maybe and
> stockbrokerage houses and insurance partnerships and this sort of thing.
> Companies named after their principal partners. If these rules are not set
> in stone, then Day One of its launch will see every .com try to get the
> same .firm name. It will be bad enough with the rush on .store ... :-)
> 
> 6): Likewise, .web and .info are bad because they are utterly
> undescriptive, redundant and unbounded. Every site has info on it. Every
> site is a web site. What's the point? Actually, .org does a good job of
> covering many of these, but there may be some better ideas -- see below.
> 
> 
> What we're missing:
> We need to establish domains that reflect the evolution of the Net and
> that better reflect what the user could expect to find there. The .store
> and .arts are good starts in this direction. But there are many more that
> are missing.
> 
> 1): .zine: Surely we need .zine space. THere are thousands and thousands
> of small web publishing projects out there that call themselves zines. So
> why don't we have gTLD space for them???
> 
> 2): .stn: General English abbreviation for "station" -- web broadcasting
> and web simulcasting is the new big push. Every TV and radio station with
> a bit of financial clout is going to want to try parallel netcasts in
> their local areas. Each station has unique call letters (CKCO, WBLT, KGMT,
> whatever) which nicely nips the trademark problem in the bud. Cable modems
> and high-speed data transfer to residential users will make these sites
> more common, but also off-limits to most Third World users for a decade
> or two. So setting up a .stn gTLD serves both as a magnet for these
> high-powered users (I know I can find gobs of content here!) and as a
> warning to tech hamstrung users (No point in looking there!). We need
> cnn.stn and pointcast.stn and so forth.
> 
> 3): .dom: The top level domain of each nation should include .dom space.
> Ever wondered where to look for a complete list of all domains in the
> Romanian space? Well, just look at www.ro.dom to find out. One .dom name
> should be issued to every registrar authority on the planet. And this site
> should contain full details on how to register new domains in that space
> and include a searchable database of existing domains. So internic.net
> gets replaced by www.com.dom, www.org.dom, www.net.dom and so forth. Think
> of all the people out there now who don't use the search engines to find
> companies -- they just guess at it: www.waltdisney.com,
> www.walt-disney.com, www.disney.com -- until they get it right. Let's end
> the guessing. And, of course, www.us.dom for .us domain space, but also
> www.mn.us.dom for Minnesota domain space and so forth. One for every
> registrar.
> 
> 4): Variant on the above: .dir or .ndx or .idx. Every region on the
> surface of the planet will soon be bursting with searchable directories
> and indexes of local Web resources, if not already. I *think* this may
> have been what the IAHC was aiming at when it coughed up .web and .info,
> but these are not specific enough to be workable -- too easy to stretch,
> bend and twist. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could type in
> www.ontario.dir or www.ontario.idx and get a search engine of Ontario
> webspace. This is somewhat more general than the .dom idea: .dom is
> devoted to the business of registering domains and checking for taken
> domains, while .dir or .idx gets you searchable databases of pages and
> resources.
> 
> 5): .xxx: It would be nice if we could shove all the porno sites into
> their own domain space. It makes it easy both to find them and to avoid
> them, according to point of view. We could not keep obscene material out
> of private unregistered urls on large ISPs, but this would separate out at
> least 90% of what's out there. Yeah, I know censorship of the net is
> almost impossible. But this isn't censorship: it's just an effort to bring
> order out of chaos in a useful fashion.
> 
> In every case here, I'm trying to pave roads where the trails already go
> and to create gTLDs that are genuinely useful to the average surfer or
> researcher.
> 
> I also think we need a two month moratorium on new coms, nets and orgs
> after the new gTLDs are launched, in which time the netgods can sweep
> through the sites and force some of them out into the new spaces. But
> that's another story (and, yes, good luck to me getting it!).
> 
> That's my two bits into the pot. Comments please??
> 
> Bryan Trussler
> (bryan@i-bahn.com)
> 
> ******************************************************
>              Infobahn Consulting Services
> Mail: bryan@i-bahn.com  ||  Web: http://www.i-bahn.com
> ******************************************************
> "All good Web sites resemble one another; every bad
> Web site is bad in its own fashion"
>        -- Leo Tolstoi in "Anna Karenina" (sort of ...)
> 
> 


       		  Steve Heflin, President | Internet Tidal Wave 
        	      (610) 882-4220 | http://www.itw.com/         
Through the modem, off the router, around the world...Nothing but 'Net! (tm)