More important is the impact that these initial choices have on the
public; these choices may have more impact on public support for the MoU
than any other decision.
A. BACKGROUND
I agree, for the most part, with the issues stated here. (I particularly
like the wording in issue 11, which is strikingly different from the
wording in the MoU, and much more appropriate).
I would like to make one point here, in regard to issue 1, the
"criticism that by selecting top level domains that overlap with other
existing gTLD categories, the effect will be confusion for users." The
answer given to this concern is good, but there is something to be kept
in mind: If the overlap in meaning is not complete, the overlapping
gTLDs may come to be somewhat distinct, and the end result may be less
confusion, rather than more. For example, .com and .firm are both
obviously designed for business use, but the names have different
connotations. A law firm or a medical corporation would probably prefer
.firm to .com (all other things being equal--of course at present, they
are not, because only .com is firmly established in people's minds),
while a restaurant probably would not.
I would also like to make a point in regard to issue 4: "It is often
suggested that strict gTLD categories should be created and registrants
forced to comply with those rules. However, note that attempts to
pre-screen registrations for suitability in registering in specific
gTLDs have so far not been successful." I have elsewhere suggested a
plan for having special TLDs of this type ("specific" or "limited"). The
basic concept is to create a charter for the TLD and establish an
organization to enforce the charter, as an entirely separate function
from registering domain names. Such a TLD could still be registered
under the MoU/CORE system by any CORE registrar willing to sign the
TLD's charter; the screening would be handled, not by the registrar, but
by the chartering organization. This being said, charatered TLDs are a
separate experiment that should probably wait until after the initial
set of TLDs are created under the MoU.
B. GENERAL QUESTIONS
1. Number of gTLDs: Generally, how many new gTLDs do you think should be
created?
For an initial set of gTLDs, a relatively small number is appropriate.
None of the categories listed is very close, I'd say "5-25." My specific
suggestions number 17, I think.
C. CHOICE OF gTLDS
1. Review of IAHC-Suggested gTLDs
a) .firm (intended for businesses, or firms):
Approve.
However, as .firm sounds much more formal than .com (and this may turn
out to be its primary appeal), I would suggest a more informal-sounding
gTLD be added as well, such as .biz.
a cont.)Considering above, would you still prefer to have legal term
gTLDs?
Yes, these would probably have to be handled as chartered TLDs, and
therefore should wait until after the initial set of gTLDs.
b) .store (for businesses offering goods to purchase):
Disapprove. The .shop TLD is much better, as suggested below.
b cont) Do you think .store should be replaced by .shop?
Yes.
c) .web (for entities emphasizing activities related to the World Wide
Web):
Approve.
d) .arts (for entities emphasizing cultural and entertainment
activities):
Disapprove. I think ".art" is shorter and simpler.
Also, I think cultural/artistic activities can be separated from
entertainment activities, as described below, which will prevent .art
from being "overloaded."
e) .rec (for entities emphasizing recreation/entertainment activities):
Approve.
f) .info (for entities providing information services):
Approve.
g) .nom (for those wishing individual or personal nomenclature, i.e., a
personal nom de plume):
Disapprove.
I think that .per is much more attractive. With regard to the issue of
overlap with 3-letter ISO abbreviations, I don't think that this has
much important. The two-letter TLD namespace is already set aside for
ISO TLDs, and I see no reason to do the same with three-letter TLDs
(especially since we already have a number of three-letter TLDs).
I also think that adding .fam as well as .per would be helpful. This
way, people setting up sites for an entire family might be encouraged to
use a separate domain name from people setting up individual sites, and
hopefully the individual/family namespace would last a little longer
before becoming overcongested
g cont) 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. It simply makes more sense to put the number on the SLD. This is
also more scalable, not less (we don't need to create a new TLD every
time a new Smith registers). Also, it fits better with established
practices in giving out user names and other desirable names both on the
Internet and off, such as personalized license plates. If I wanted to be
payn@aol.com and there were already 23 people ahead of me, I'd be
payn23@aol.com, not payn@aol23.com. Similarly, if I was the 24th person
to want PAYN as a personalized license plate in California, I'd have
California plate PAYN23, not California23 plate PAYN.
I'd also like to comment on an objection I've heard to this: Obviously,
someone will have to make it easy on the end-user to help them request
an available name. I suggest leaving this up to registrars (and ISPs,
etc.) to provide as an additional service.
2. Creation of gTLD Indicating Adult-Oriented Content
2 cont)Do you think that a sort of "red-light-zone" gTLD should be
created?
Strongly approve.
2 cont) If you strongly approve or approve, do you think this should be
the gTLD .xxx?
Yes.
However, if .xxx is added, please make it clear in press releases, etc.
that there is no way of requiring all pornographic sites to register
under .xxx, as many people seem to interpret the .xxx addition
improperly. Just as in the real world, the red-light district would have
a heavy concentration of the pornographic sites, but there would still
be others scattered throughout the rest of the Internet, including some
borderline cases who would deliberately choose to stay out of ".xxx" to
maintain an "upscale" image, as well as those who already have ".com"
names.
3. Other Suggestions
A TLD should be added for educational sites other than four-year
institutions. This would include not only schools, but also other
educational providers, business catering to the educational market, etc.
Although k12 is often suggested, I believe that this should be
restricted to actual schools, and should be a chartered TLD. The
existing .edu is obviously the best choice for this name, but it's
already taken, so I suggest .sch (for "school," "scholar," etc.).
Adding TLDs for science- and computer-related activities is probably
also desirable. For the first, I suggest .sci. For the second, .comp is
the obvious suggestion, but it may be too similar to .com. Therefore, I
suggest waiting until after the first set of TLDs to add a
computer-related gTLD.
Also, because a large number of small sites are dedicated to fan pages
of various types (mostly music groups and TV series, but also actors,
movies, writers, dolls, etc.), I'd suggest providing another location
for these types of sites besides .rec and .art, such as .fan. This may
help delay the overcrowding of .rec, and will also be a more appropriate
place for official and unofficial fan clubs.
I'd also suggest a TLD devoted to the entertainment industry, to relieve
pressure both on .com, .firm, and .biz and on .art, and .rec. The
obvious suggestion is .ent. Actually, unless there a reason that
one-letter TLDs are not acceptable, .e might be a better suggestion
(except that it might carry the unwanted connotation of "electronic").
It might be better to add .mov--for the movie industry, movie criticism,
and movie fan sites--and .mus--for the music industry, musicians and
bands, music criticism, and music fan sites.
Finally, a TLD devoted to financial activities seems desirable. I'd
suggesting saving .bank for a chartered TLD to be created later, so I
suggest .fin.
In summary is my final list of suggestions:
.firm (a "more formal sounding" .com)
.biz (a "less formal sounding" .com)
.shop (on-line sales)
.web (WWW-related sites)
.art (art and culture)
.rec (recreation)
.info (information)
.per (personal, individual sites)
.fam (family sites)
.xxx (adult-oriented content)
.sch (educational content and education-oriented business)
.sci (science)
.fan (official and unofficial fan clubs)
.ent (entertainment)
.mov (movie industry, criticism, and fans)
.mus (music industry, musicians, criticism, and fans)
.fin (financial activities)