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

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Not only that, but I teach basic computer to newbys. I can guarantee you
they are more comfortable with a phone book than they are going into "my
computer" and searching for their own files they created, let alone ones
that someone else may have created.

There are a lot of techies here on this list and power users. Not a majority
of users, by any stretch of the imagination are technically savvy. New
computer users don't use windows explorer for example or manually open my
computer to search for files. They only know shortcuts through
start/programs.

The same when building websites. If you don't put "click here", many won't
know that it's even a link. But people do click links. They do not know how
it works or why. They go to search engines vs typing intuitive names into
the address bar.

So learning a hierarchal system vs learning how to use a phone book is not
better IMHO.

Chris McElroy
http://www.newsandmediablog.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "ICANN new-gtlds" <new-gtlds-pdp-comments@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <domains-gen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, December 26, 2005 1:31 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Many vs. few new gTLDs - a graphical representation


> George and all,
>
> I might agree that many new gTLD's would or could be confusing,
> but hardly "Scary".  Such things in life should not scare anyone.
> The free market will take care of that problem in an evolutionary
> way, sooner or later.
>
> I might also agree that few gTLD's is as confusing as there is
> perhaps little logical in intuitive was for some stakeholders/users
> to determine where to look for what or how to best emphasize
> their business or venture in a name space.  This is why in many ways
> I don't see the viability of .COM other than it has been very well
> marketed, as a viable name space for every business venture to
> register their Domain Name.  Similar is true for .EDU for educational
> institutions or organizations, and same is also true for .ORG for
> non-commercial enterprises.
>
> Hence than, it is wiser to allow for the free market system to
> determine such notions and weed the seed form the chaff
> as developments and the market place ebbs and flows..
>
> George Kirikos wrote:
>
> > 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/
>
> Regards,
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
> "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
>    Abraham Lincoln
>
> "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
> very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
>
> "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
> liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
> P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
> United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
> ===============================================================
> Updated 1/26/04
> CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
> IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
> ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
> E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  Registered Email addr with the USPS
> Contact Number: 214-244-4827
>
>