Re: [ga] gTLDs and the heretofore flawed ICANN paradigm

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Re:  what exactly are the "naming needs not adequately
met by
existing names"?

If we were forced to work within a strict and
unmutable taxonomy, then congestion within a
particular namespace could become a problem that
creates a naming need.  When businesses found it
difficult to obtain a "good" .com name, we needed to
expand that space by accretion (adding other
commercial namespaces such as .biz).  In time we may
need to add .inc or .shop etc.

I think that Milton is arguing that a strict taxonomy
will not necessarily work, and that circumstances will
arise often enough that require a deviation from a
precise taxonomy so that it isn't worth it in the long
run to pursue such a categorization scheme.  

That's why I tend to prefer a concept that is closer
to the zoning laws that one sees in municipalities. 
Just as we can zone an area for pornographic
businesses, and another area for retail businesses and
yet another for wholesale businesses, and even zone
for sectors (such as a garment district in a city), we
should be able to think in terms of zones within a
taxonomic structure.

As such, a commercial zone could include several TLDs
ranging from .boutique to .LLC while a non-commercial
zone could include a non-profit sector (.npo) or
charities (.charity) as well as the other entities
that inhabit .org.



--- sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Danny Younger wrote:
> 
> > The taxonomic approach is not a real option. Over
> 40
> > million legacy registrations, more than half of
> them
> > in one TLD, make it impossible at this stage of
> the
> > DNS?s development to ?rationalize? the name space
> by
> > promulgating a classificatory TLD scheme. The name
> > space can only evolve through accretion; i.e., by
> the
> > gradual addition of new TLDs that meet naming
> needs
> > not adequately met by existing names. Taxonomies
> and
> > organized naming structures can and do exist
> within
> > TLDs (as well as in portals, search engines,
> private
> > keyword spaces, and digital libraries). But the
> idea
> > of a global DNS taxonomy that divides the entire
> > Internet up into neat little cubbyholes once and
> for
> > all is an impossibility.
> 
> This requires clarification as it does not make any
> sense to me.  If the
> issue is that the "taxonomic approach is not a real
> option" then what
> exactly are the "naming needs not adequately met by
> existing names"?
> 
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com