1. Number of gTLDs
Generally, how many new gTLDs do you think should be created?
150 or more
Technical feasibility has been demonstrated with 2 letter country
names. There seems to be no strong technical reason to not make
larger numbers of domain name elements available at the top level,
rather than than putting the bulk at the second level, where it will
unnecessarily extend the textual length of the average domain name
and cause the small number of gTLDs to become arbitrary tags. I feel
there should be gTLD's covering major business categories
(eg. .transport), major social categories (eg. .sport) and major
topics (eg. .sea)
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 - disapprove, it has mild sexual connotations in English and
is archaic as a business moniker.
If you disapprove or strongly disapprove, what gTLD would you suggest
in place of .firm in this category?
biz
The netnews newsgroups are a very good model for how the gTLD's
could develop. Simply reverse the order of elements to get
reasonable domain names. I see no strong reason why the basic
structures should be particularly different, though of course there
has been alot learnt from the experience of the newsgroup hierarchy
and we can improve on it.
Considering above, would you still prefer to have legal term
gTLDs? no
b) .store - disapprove, unnecessarily formal.
Do you think .store should be replaced by .shop? yes
c) .web - approve, but seems a little redundant for an entity already
on the web.
d) .arts - strongly approve
e) .rec - strongly approve
f) .info - approve, though again it seems a little redundant for a web
based entity.
g) .nom - strongly disapprove, far too close to .com and will lead to
many errors.
If you disapprove or strongly disapprove, what gTLD would you
suggest in place of .nom in this category? .alt
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? no, consideration should be given to how the
the second level names should be handled instead.
eg. Allow open slather. People can use number suffixes at the
second level if really wanted instead of the top level.
eg. Only dictionary words at the second level.
eg. Only numbers or single letters at the second level.
eg. If arbitrary labels are really required create .phone and
allow people to register there own phone numbers. Have a
separate `ISD' code for people without phone numbers.
There is *no* need to create yet another arbitrary number
space.
eg. Have social categories instead such as .eng, .golf or .sea.
Let individuals decide what they want to be associated with.
We already have geographical categories so they don't need to
be included.
2. Creation of gTLD Indicating Adult-Oriented Content
Do you think that a sort of "red-light-zone" gTLD should be created?
approve
If you strongly approve or approve, do you think this should be the
gTLD .xxx? yes, but only just. xxxx is a beer in Australia and xxx
is a little ambiguous as to the number of x's.
3. Other Suggestions
Please make any other suggestion concerning the names of the new gTLDs
not covered above.
- Do not fixate on the number of characters in the gTLD. The important
characteristic is the mnemonic ability, not the length.
- Arbitrary labels like numbers and acronyms should be avoided unless
some user actually wants them. There is no need with a decent
hierarchy and the very large numbers of meaningful English words
available. Keep in mind that arbitrary number labels (IP addresses)
are already implemented.
- Please do not underestimate the news system newsgroup hierarchy as
a model for how the DNS should develop.
- In addition learn from the experience of all the other information
labelling hierarchies that have been created over time including
library cataloging systems and trade mark law.
- I am strongly supportive of your intent to open up the DNS.
Do not let .com name speculators (dependent on an arbitrarily
restricted DNS) side track you from the real issue, that of allowing
all technically feasible DNS names to be used. Anything less than
this is an unnecessary burden/restriction on the net community as a
whole.
- Keep up the good work!
[END]
Julian Byrne <Julian.Byrne@eng.monash.edu.au> (NO JUNK EMAIL)
Anti-junk email tips: <URL:http://kryten.eng.monash.edu.au/gspam.html>