Re: [ga] New top level domains considered harmful

[Peter Dambier <peter@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi George,

with some 85% of all domains in .com DNS has already
deteriorated to a flat file again.

ccTLDs are useless, most of them for most of us.

When you are unrooted by your job or by the market you have to go for .com

Now have a look at DNS:

com.  600 IN  SOA a.gtld-servers.net. nstld.verisign-grs.com. 1240354591 1800 
900 604800 900
net.  600 IN  SOA a.gtld-servers.net. nstld.verisign-grs.com. 1240354606 1800 
900 604800 900

Looks like there was no alternative to .com

When you replace the root-servers.net with gtld-servers.net
you will be correct most of the time. Now you do have a flat file.


Kind regards
Peter


George Kirikos wrote:
> 
> In 2004 the W3C Technical Architecture Group and Tim Berners-Lee (yet, the 
> inventor of the World Wide Web) wrote a document about new top level domains 
> that still resonates to this day. ICANN, NTIA/DOC and USDOJ should pay heed 
> to its insights:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/TLD
> 
> and in particular:
> 
> 1) "The tree structure was an improvement over the previous flat space of 
> host names. It reduced the chaos, by allowing new names to be allocated in 
> sub-domains without recourse to a central registration system."
> 
> A world of infinite top level domains goes backwords to a flat space, instead 
> of a tree structure, and would be a step backwards and not an improvement.
> 
> 2) "There have been temptations for the registry companies to consider 
> themselves owners of unclaimed names."
> 
> Indeed, ICANN seems to want to institutionalize this, through bad policy, by 
> auctioning entire gTLDs to the highest bidder.
> 
> 3) "And because the DNS tree is so fundamental to the Internet applications 
> which build on top of it, any uncertainty about the future creates 
> immediately instability and harm."
> 
> ICANN through its push to create massive numbers of new gTLDs over the 
> objections of the public causes instability and harm. ICANN is creating 
> uncertainty about the future.
> 
> 4) "Our first instincts, then should be not to change the system with 
> anything but incremental and carefully thought-out changes. The addition of 
> new top-levels domains is a very disturbing influence. It carries great cost. 
> It should only be undertaken when there is a very clear benefit to the new 
> domain."
> 
> Instead of the above well considered incremental approach (even advocated by 
> the Department of Commerce, NTIA and DOJ) ICANN proposes a wild-west free for 
> all.
> 
> 5) "The chief effect of the introduction of the .biz and .info domains 
> appears to have been a cash influx for the domain name registries."
> 
> That's a diplomatic way of saying "these are failed gTLDs." Only the 
> registries have received the main benefits.
> 
> 6) "After an unstable period when the first come first served system was in 
> play and greedy squatters grabbed domains simply for speculation, it has now 
> settled down."
> 
> It has now settled down implies stability.
> 
> 7) "Introducing new TLDs has two effects.
> 
> The first effect is a little like printing more money. The value of one's 
> original registration drops. At the same time, the cost of protecting one's 
> brand goes up (from the cost of three domains to four, five, ...).
> 
> The value of each domain name such as example.com also drops because of brand 
> dilution and public confusion. Even though most people largely ignore the 
> last segment of the name, when it is actually used to distinguish between 
> different owners, this increases the mental effort required to remember which 
> company has which top level domain. This makes the whole name space less 
> usable."
> 
> Couldn't have said better myself.
> 
> 8) "The second effect is that instability is brought on. There is a flurry of 
> activity to reserve domain names, a rush one cannot afford to miss in order 
> to protect one's brand. There is a rash of attempts to steal well-known or 
> valuable domains. The whole process involves a lot of administration, a lot 
> of cost per month, a lot of business for those involved in the domain name 
> business itself, and a negative value to the community."
> 
> ICANN's mission is security and stability. Notice the massive instability 
> they are proposing violates their mission. This puts into question their 
> continued stewardship of the root.
> 
> 9) "When the benefits of the new domain itself are small or negative (as we 
> discuss below), then one looks for incentive. The large amount of money that 
> has changed hands for domain names might lead a person to suspect that this 
> was the motivation."
> 
> Of course it's the motivation. ICANN is driven by the desire for more 
> expansion, the desire to pay above-market salaries, the desire to engage in 
> world travel, etc. ICANN does not act like a non-profit.
> 
> 10) "The root of the domain name system is a single public resource, by 
> design. Its control must be for and, indirectly, by the people as a whole. To 
> give away a large chunk of this to a private group would be simply a betrayal 
> of the public trust put in ICANN."
> 
> There you have it --- "a betrayal of the public trust."
> 
> I encourage folks to read the entire document, and notice the universal 
> truths it contains even though it was written 5 years ago.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> George Kirikos
> http://www.leap.com/

-- 
Peter and Karin Dambier
Planet Communication and Computing Facility
Rimbacher Strasse 16
D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher
+49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
+49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
mail: peter@xxxxxxxx
http://www.pccf.net/
http://www.peter-dambier.de/
http://iason.site.voila.fr/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48