[ga] Top Level Domain or Second Level Domain?

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Sotiris writes:  "I would say a more prudent and
logical approach would be to use the existing ccTLD
and to partition it further based on states/provinces
and perhaps regions or even cities"

This above comment puts a finger on the problem that
we all are facing -- earlier I had written about
.berlin and had argued that some would say that it
rightly belongs as a subdomain of .de or .eu

Let's face it, some applicant will tender a hefty
application fee (after having committed a significant
amount of time and resources developing support for a
proposal) only to be told by some member of the Board
that "in my view, it would be more logical for [name
of string] to be at the second-level rather than at
the top-level".

We can't let such subjectivity enter into the process.


What we need to develop is an understanding of what
belongs or doesn't belong at the top level, and to
clearly spell that out by way of the selection
criteria.

Please note that the year 2000 criteria stated:

"The enhancement of the utility of the DNS.
     One motivation often cited for introducing new
TLDs is that doing so might increase the utility of
the DNS. Under this view, the appropriateness of
adding new TLDs should be evaluated based on whether
addition of the new TLDs:  would sensibly add to the
existing DNS hierarchy" 
?Criteria for Assessing TLD Proposals?
http://www.icann.org/tlds/tld-criteria-15aug00.htm 

Is this criterion as stated still acceptable?  Do all
new TLDs have to be "sensible" additions to the
hierarchy?  Do they all need to display a quality of
"appropriateness"?

Can't we find better language to make it clear as to
what we believe belongs at the top level and at other
levels?  



--- sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Danny Younger wrote:
> 
> > I started wondering what the internet might be
> like
> > if, for example, a New York City resident could
> access
> > local content by recourse to a .212 TLD that
> limited
> > registrations to those that had a phone number in
> the
> > 212 area code.
> 
> In my post
>
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg03436.html
> on Decemeber 16, I likened the gTLD namespace to the
> area code system, but
> I do not support the idea of localized area code
> TLDs per se.  I think a
> far more prudent approach would be to use the
> existing ccTLD hierarchy for
> any such localized breakdown.
> 
> >My assumption is that such New Yorkers
> > would have no problem becoming accustomed to a
> > numerical TLD that corresponded with their own
> area
> > code and would probably discover a great amount of
> > utility in such a namespace.
> >
> > John Klensin has been fond of pointing out that
> the
> > nature of the current naming system is such that
> it
> > cannot support both Joe's Pizza (of Boston) and
> Joe's
> > Pizza (of San Francisco) as only one joespizza may
> be
> > registered in a TLD.
> >
>
http://ietfreport.isoc.org/idref/draft-klensin-dns-role/
> 
> Well, joespizza.us is currently available so I'd say
> that there's still at
> least one opportunity for some lucky Joe... ;-)
> 
> >
> > If each area code had its own TLD, then the Joe's
> of
> > this world would have a greater opportunity to
> > establish domains that corrsponded with their
> > particular business identities.  Yes, it's a
> taxonomic
> > approach with nexus requirements, but it would
> > probably serve local communities better than the
> > current set of alternatives.
> 
> Again, I would say a more prudent and logical
> approach would be to use the
> existing ccTLD and to partition it further based on
> states/provinces and
> perhaps regions or even cities; an approach will
> already exists in fact.
> 
> Amiably,
> 
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> 
> 



	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. 
http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/