B. GENERAL QUESTIONS
1. Number of gTLDs
Generally, how many new gTLDs do you think should be created?
Answer: 150 or more
Comment:
To avoid complications, it may be useful to initially limit
the rate of creation of new gTLDs, to (say) one a week.
C. CHOICE OF gTLDS
1. Review of IAHC-Suggested gTLDs
How would you rate each of the following gTLD names selected by the IAHC?
a) .firm (intended for businesses, or firms), check one of the below:
Answer: disapprove
If you disapprove or strongly disapprove, what gTLD would you suggest in
place of .firm in this category?
Answer: .xxx
Special note: A common suggestion is that business term-related gTLDs like
.inc, .corp, .ltd, .plc, .gmbh, .sarl should be selected instead of general
terms like ".firm". However, these terms have legal significance and it is
typically illegal to use them unless the registering entity actually is
"incorporated", a "limited liability company", a "public listed company", etc.
Verifying this would most likely require pre-screening activities by domain
name registrars (as is the case in the UK with plc.u and ltd.uk) and probably
result in increased registration costs and submission of proof of related
legal status. Also note that since all 2 letter TLDs are reserved for ISO
3166 country code delegations (e.g., .us, .fr, .au), equivalent business
legal abbreviations commonly used in other languages (e.g., "sa", "sc", "oy",
"ab", and "sl") could not be allocated.
Considering above, would you still prefer to have legal term gTLDs?
Answer: no
Comment:
In my opinion, legal terms might work better under the ISO domains.
If so, which ones (in order of preference)?
Answer:
I do not think it's wise to add more non-specific TLDs, like
clones of .com, but rather many more specific TLDs should be used,
encouraging self-selection from the registrants. Such self-selection
can bee seen in the current .net and .org domains, tho it's somewhat
limited due to lack of alternative choices. If adequate choices
are made available, and enough domains created to discourage
registering across all of them, no regulation or pre-screening
should be necessary.
b) .store (for businesses offering goods to purchase), check one of the below:
Answer: strongly disapprove
If you disapprove or strongly disapprove, what gTLD would you suggest in place
of .store in this category?
Answer: .bank, .flowers, airlines, ...
Comment:
See my comment at (1a) above on more specific domain names.
Special note: There have been many suggestions that .store be replaced by .shop
which has significance in multiple languages and, unlike .store, has related
verb and noun meanings. Do you think .store should be replaced by .shop?
Answer: no
c) .web (for entities emphasizing activities related to the World Wide Web),
check one of the below:
Answer: disapprove
If you disapprove or strongly disapprove, what gTLD would you suggest in place
of .web in this category?
Answer: none
Comment:
The web is too broad and unspecific as a category to offer much
opportunity for self-selection; the possibility exists that it
will just end up as a pseudo syntactical element, somewhat like
what has happened with the www.*.com construct.
d) .arts (for entities emphasizing cultural and entertainment activities),
check one of the below:
Answer: disapprove
If you disapprove or strongly disapprove, what gTLD would you suggest in place
of .arts in this category?
Answer: .movie, .museum, .library, ...
Comment:
The distinction between .arts and .rec as described here seems
too blurred to allow registrants a choice but registering in both.
See also my comment at (1a) above on more specific domain names.
e) .rec (for entities emphasizing recreation/entertainment activities), check
one of the below:
Answer: disapprove
If you disapprove or strongly disapprove, what gTLD would you suggest in place
of .rec in this category?
Answer: .movie, .travel, .casino, ...
Comment:
See above at (1d) regarding .arts.
f) .info (for entities providing information services), check one of the below:
Answer: approve
Comment:
If a wider range of domains are created, this would be a useful choice.
g) .nom (for those wishing individual or personal nomenclature, i.e., a
personal nom de plume), check one of the below:
Answer: approve
Special note 1: Since this gTLD is for individuals and registrations could
number in the millions, if not hundreds of millions, there is naturally
concern about the scaleability of a personal name space gTLD. There have
been suggestions that in order to improve the scaleability of the .nom name
space, a numerical identifier should be added to the .nom gTLD from the
outset (e.g, .nom1, .nom2, .nom3, etc.) Do you agree?
Answer: no
Comment:
Adding numbers to avoid conflicts is a well known practice, and
a quick look at the list of .com domains should be sufficient to
show that it's been almost universally rejected.
For personal domain names, I would like to suggest a different
approach: register third level domains at the choice of the user,
but only in second level domains matching the person's full legal
name. Thus, I could register e.g. "the-ranch.paul-svensson.nom"
or "the-ranch.paul-f-svensson.nom", but not "svensson.nom",
"the-ranch.nom" nor "the-ranch.ponderosa.nom".
Persons who usually write their name with non-ascii characters
could use their favourite transliteration, or, when available,
some encoding scheme like the one proposed by M. Dillon on
the IAHC mailing list in december 1996.
Special note 2: There are often suggestions that names like .id, .me, ind, or
.per should be used as a "personal" gTLD. Please note the following reasons
for rejecting these names:
TLD Reason for Rejection
.id .id is already allocated as the ISO 3166 two-letter country code
for Indonesia all two-letter top level domain are reserved for
future ISO 3166 country-code allocations
.me all two-letter top level domain codes are reserved for future ISO
3166 country-code allocations
.ind .ind is the three-letter ISO 3166 country code for India, we
considered it prudent to hold this code in reserve
.per .per is the three-letter ISO 3166 country code for Peru, we
considered it prudent to hold this code in reserve
Comment:
Given that all possible two-letter combinations are already
reserved, that one three-letter ISO 3166 code is already
allocated for the .com domain, and that ISO may assign new
three-letter codes, I see little value in reserving any
three-letter combinations.
2. Creation of gTLD Indicating Adult-Oriented Content
There is often the suggestion made that a dedicated gTLD indicating the
equivalent to a "red-light-zone" would be useful in isolating and filtering
adult-oriented content from minors on the Internet. There are differing
opinions on how effective this would be. The most common suggestion is the
request to create a gTLD .xxx. Do you think that a sort of "red-light-zone"
gTLD should be created?
Answer: strongly approve
Comment:
Isolating and filtering are largely irrelevant issues, that do not
need to be considered when considering this domain name; it's a
strong enough candidate regardless.
If you strongly approve or approve, do you think this should be the gTLD .xxx?
Answer: yes
3. Other Suggestions
Please make any other suggestion concerning the names of the new gTLDs not
covered above.
Comment:
Selection of actual TLD names should be done by CORE; POC should
formulate general policy for creation, but not get involved in
the operational details.