A. BACKGROUND:
Read and understood.
B. GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Number of gTLDs. Generally, how many should be created?
The number of 1-10 is a good range at this present time. However, to
resist the impulse to stretch the application of any
TLD beyond its intended use (as in: ".net" for non-networks or
".org" for profitable ventures or ".com" for ISPs), I urge that
the implementation of *these* new gTLDs be accompanied by an
announcement of the *next* round of proposed gTLDs. In other
words, to prevent the impression that this is the end of the
story for another decade, we need to put out further suggestiona
for the next round. This may inspire many groups to "make do"
in their current situations and/or "wait it out" until the next
round of new gTLDs. For ex: an announcement of a future "*.med"
may inspire many clinics to wait for its arrival rather than
attempt to crowd the "*.firm" space or "*.com" space.
C. CHOICE OF gTLDs:
1. Review of Current Suggestions:
a): .firm === Approve, with caveat
I understand your reluctance to get into chartered gTLDs at this
time, but I would strongly recommend that this be presented
to the public with context as to its intended uses. I see this
as being perfect for unincorporated partnerships of
professionals of various kinds -- lawyers, doctors, accountants,
architects even and so forth. I can understand that there will
be significant overlap with ".com" space. BUT: I think you will
agree there is **no** desire to see this space become synonymous
with ".com" (in which many ISP networks and pornographic sites
are also registered). I mean: we do not want to see ISPs
operating with .firm space or pornographic sites and so forth
or else it becomes meaningless. Utterly meaningless.
b): .store === Strongly Disapprove
I think it must be "*.shop" instead. Otherwise, a splendid idea.
Again, ISPs should not be able to get a shop domain. But I can
see room for porno sites in here.
c): .web === No Opinion
This is kind of a catch-all term if ever there was one. It's
synonymous with ".info" really -- too much overlap between them.
I'd recommend choosing one or the other but not both.
d): .arts === Strongly Approve
This is an excellent suggestion. And I would be against
shortening it to ".art" because the arts are more than just
visual art -- this category can include theatre, cinema, opera
and music. Also, I can see room for: "erotic.arts" and
"martial.arts" and many others.
e): .rec === Approve
This one leaves me kind of non-plussed, but maybe that is just
me. It doesn't get me excited at all. Maybe because it sounds
like "wreck"?? :-) But seriously, maybe there is another word
more universally understood and already short (thus not so
drastically chopped short)?? Like ".fun" maybe or ".play"?
f): .info == No Opinion
Again, I think there is too much overlap with ".web". Choose one.
g): .nom == Approve, with caveat
I can appreciate the concerns over scaleability with this one.
I can see it as something more useful to the rich and famous ---
like "johnlennon.nom" or "liztaylor.nom" or "diana.nom" --- and
perhaps this needs to be its charter. Someone else has suggested
".fam" for families, but this may be too English. How about one
as "*.gen" as short for "genealogy" or "genome" in which surnames
only get registered. Someone could register "smith.gen", for
example, and then start registering subdomains to individuals
with this name "john01.smith.gen" and "john23.smith.gen" and
so forth. That would be somewhat scaleable.....
2. Porno Site gTLD:
Strongly Approve. And yes, let it be ".xxx". Existing porno sites
within ".com" should be given the option of migrating into the
new space before it is thrown open to all comers. Otherwise we
shall merely duplicate the existing redlight district (so that
instead of merely "nude.com" or "nude.xxx", we shall have
"nude.com" *and* "nude.xxx" -- doubling available space instead
of ghettoing it). Whoever takes over NSI's role should simply
forbid new registrations in .com and .net and .org using obscene
terms. Then, when the renewals come up .....
3. Other Suggestions:
Here's where I really get going. My core philosophy in this debate is
that we must build paved roads where paths are already beaten down. In
other words, follow the lines of growth rather than fighting them. It is
for this reason that I approve of the porno domain ".xxx" -- the
Internet has proven itself able to sustain a large number of these
sites, so let them have their own space. But we can go further than
this:
a): .dom: Every TLD should have an associated ".dom" assignation. There
need not be any more of these than there are TLDs. Purpose is to
simplify domain research. Very few understand what a "NIC" is. So, if I
want to look up domains in Romania, I should go to "www.ro.dom". And if
I want to look up domains in Canada, let it be found at "www.ca.dom"!
And how about going to "www.mn.us.dom" to search for domains in
Minnesota? Multiple registrars? No problem -- this central search engine
of domains could be operated and maintained jointly by the registrars
(something akin to this will *have* to be maintained to synchronise
registrations, so why not make it public and put it to greater use??).
What I am describing here is not an open fulltext search engine,
nor a structured hierarchy index like Yahoo. More like a "whois" service
on the Web with some depth to it. Most domain registrations require a
brief paragraph outlining the purpose of the domain. This field could be
searchable along with others (contact names, addresses and so forth). So
typing in "Miami" at "www.fl.us.dom" should bring up a hyperlinked list
of all domains registered to Miami residents. Very useful!!!
b): .ndx or .idx: An extension of my desire to simplify research. Let us
create a TLD just for search engines. It's not just the big guys any
more. There are thousands of regional and local and topical search
engines all over the Net. New ones every day. I think they deserve their
own category. Again, it may be desirable to provide a migration period
for existing search engines to claim equivalent domains in the new TLD
(conditional upon giving up the old ones!).
c): .zine: Zines are electronic publications that were practically
invented on the Internet (not quite, but close enough). There are tens
of thousands of these little projects. Many are of short duration but
some survive. They are taking up "valuable" space in ".com" and
elsewhere that larger companies may want to claim (not to belittle them,
but you can see the point). This is a well-trod path long overdue for a
roadway of its own. Failing this, how about ".pub" for publications in
general??
d): .stn or .cast: Webcasting and other forms of online broadcasting are
growing by leaps and bounds. We need a domain for broadcasting stations
of all kinds. The system of call names for radio and TV stations has
been around for decades and provides a ready-made check on naming
conflicts, up to a point. So: "www.wbtn.stn" and "www.ckrb.stn" and so
forth. Added benefit of warding off visitors from low-tech areas who
will know in advance that they lack the hardware to visit such a site.
e): .news: Maybe we need a ".news" for online newspapers and other news
sources. Newspapers normally have a name too similar to local geography
to escape duplication. Creating a ".news" domain would permit greater
creative scope.
Helpfully,
Bryan Trussler
(bryan@i-bahn.com)