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

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes Danny,

That's the outline 'zoning' concept I was suggesting. Not a rigid taxonomy
that predicts in advance every possible future category of TLD, but a kind
of "town-planning" of the namespace into 'zones' of common interest. A
light-touch taxonomy which would, however, have to be borne in mind by all
future TLD applicants. So they would be asked, precisely which category/zone
do you foresee your proposed TLD fitting into. One of those zones could,
indeed, be "Miscellaneous and Not Fitting Any Other Category".

But in this DNS municipality, you could have: "Education" "Health"
"Countries and Places" "Retail Businesses" "Non-Retail Commerce" "Non-Profit
Sector" "Science Park" "Search Zone" "Hobbies and Recreations"
"Entertainment" "Computers and Internet" etc etc- and then it's over to the
free market to determine which New TLDs survive and which don't, but at
least the taxonomy itself would survive so that if a .school crashed, it
could be replaced by a similar TLD in due course.

Of course, you could argue that such a taxonomy is just an artificial layer
of complication and unneeded control, but I feel it might offer some
potential structure to what might otherwise seem to be a chaotic and
confusing explosion of TLDs that leave people muddled and unclear.

I would see such a taxonomy not as a means of limiting or controlling future
TLDs, but simply as a lightweight means of making some kind of sense of them
for the public, and also a means by which a plethora of New TLDs could be
subordinated to something unifying and rational and 'shared' by the whole
community.

Fast forward 10 years... we have 427 TLDs (excluding ccTLDs) or maybe we
have 2427 TLDs. You want to know what TLDs there are, and what kinds, and
which ones you'd like to explore or maybe develop yourself... so you look at
the "Town-planning Zones" and in each "Neighbourhood" you find 20 or 40 or
50 TLDs... ah, you think, yes this is the zone I want to look into more...
the TLDs in this zone are of interest to me... in fact, I might even be
interested in launching my own competing TLD in this zone...

Agreed, search can find out much of what you'd need to know anyway, but I do
think that some kind of 'zoning' taxonomy like this for TLDs would be
helpful, as part of the future development of the namespace... not a
constraint but a support.

Richard H

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 12:36 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] gTLDs and the heretofore flawed ICANN paradigm


> 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.
>