Re: [ga] Sir Berners-Lee on specific problems with .mobi

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 06:04 p.m. 15/12/2004, you wrote:
> Hello,
>
> --- Sotiris Sotiropoulos <sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > As a matter of record, I wish to make a point of this particular
> > argument, and to let it stand in the archive of this body..,
>
> I'll go on record too, that .mobi and .jobs (and .travel) all suck, and
> won't go anywhere. They'll pollute the namespace.

How so?
Pollution is typically a harm to bystanders.

Trademark holders will continue to feel that the cost of additional TLD 
registrations is negligible to them, compared to the risk of having to 
defend an accusation of lax trademark policing of their brand.
As you say, we may end up be little real traffic in those TLD's. Who cares?

For others new TLD's are perfectly avoidable.


> The only application that I found appealing and compelling at present
> was .post.
>
> .tel has potential as a TLD, but I think there's no consensus yet on
> who should run it. .tel could become more popular than .com, in terms
> of number of registrations (not measured by DNS activity, though, in
> terms of routing traffic, etc), but ideally would cost very little, so
> that the benefits flow to consumers.

In all likelihood, pricing will be as close as possible to the current most 
competitive registrations, so that ICANN can project an additional revenue 
stream that will allow it to grow.

My concern is that users could be herded into chartered TLD's by industry 
agreements or regulation, without having any say in the wording of the 
charters or the appointment of office-holders.

BTW, how is ICANN's ombudsman office coming along?


--Joop--

www.icannatlarge.com