Re: [ga] Many vs. few new gTLDs - a graphical representation

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thats like saying, they'll never understand the phone book.

I get your point about the hierarchical nature of the Internet. However that
does not say that cannot be improved upon.

If we are going to use hierachy, then no one should have a .com name, or a
.org, or a .net, etc. They should be in name.cars.com or name.lawyers.com

How do you propose we tell everyone they need to relinquish their current
domain names so we can recreate the namespace to make more sense. The time
to do that was in the beginning. No way to foresee what occurred probably,
therefore we now have the problem of fixing it so it's fair to current and
future generations of users and business owners who want a good domain name.

Forcing me to create 3 aqnd 4 word domain names for companies is wrong. No
matter how it's described, ICANN is choosing to allow companies to have
unfair advantage over other companies that now exist and ones that will be
started in the future.

Chris McElroy
http://www.missingchildrenblog.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George Kirikos" <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <new-gtlds-pdp-comments@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <domains-gen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2005 5:18 PM
Subject: [ga] Many vs. few new gTLDs - a graphical representation


> Hello,
>
> As a quick followup to my prior comments:
>
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/new-gtlds-pdp-comments/msg00005.html
>
> I wanted to provide a graphical representation of the choice between
> many new gTLDs, vs few new gTLDs.
>
> A good representation of an internet with many gTLDs would be:
>
> http://www.kirikos.com/media/many_gtlds.jpg
>
> An internet with few gTLDs can be represented by:
>
> http://www.kirikos.com/media/few_gtlds.jpg
>
> If the folks who are making submissions simply click on the "My
> Computer" icon on their desktop, or "Finder" (on a Mac), or take a look
> at their own desktop, they can get a sense of whether we need thousands
> of new gTLDs, or whether a smaller number is better. The DNS is a
> hierarchical naming system. If we look at the analogy between the DNS
> and our own computer desktops, the "root" would be comparable to our
> desktop (or the top folder in our computer hard disk).
>
> I think most ordinary users would find the "many gTLDs" image to be
> cluttered, disorganized, irrational, non-sensical, and not a good model
> upon which to design a system to be used by billions of users. People
> who are advocating thousands of new gTLDs presumably have desktops that
> look like that -- scary! It's been good for the internet that ICANN has
> resisted the urge to pollute the purity of the namespace with a design
> of that nature.
>
> If one read my prior comments about an "Ascension allocation method", a
> quasi-gTLD that got promoted to the root would be comparable to having
> a subfolder on one's computer that gets accessed very often, and gets
> large enough to deserve having a "Shortcut" created on the Desktop of
> the computer.
>
> If we  look at two other models of information organzization, namely
> the "Library of Congress Classification Outline (LOC)" and the "Dewey
> Decimal System", they too show the advantages of a hierarchical
> structure with relatively few top nodes.
>
> The LOC structure can be seen at:
>
> http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/lcco/lcco.html
>
> and has 21 top levels. [as an aside, reserving the single letter .com
> domains for the Library of Congress might be a nice idea, to allow them
> to create an information index based on their classification system]
>
> The Dewey structure can be seen at:
>
> http://www.lib.duke.edu/libguide/fi_books_dd.htm
>
> and has 10 top levels. These are 2 proven designs that have been used
> by hundreds of millions of people worldwide.
>
> I hope the above has provided useful input to show the advantages of a
> system with few new gTLDs, instead of one with many new gTLDs.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/