Re: [ga] Top Level Domain or Second Level Domain?

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Danny, you started off so good in that post! "We can't let such subjectivity
enter into the process." Then you blew it and said " 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."

The whole point is that no criteria other than the technical ability to run
a tld is required. The only second criteria is that they be a financially
sound company at the time of the application.

We don't need to review their business plan.

We don't have to think they have a good idea.

We don't have to like the tld they are creating.

We don't have to worry about "what if they fail" because some will.
Companies fail all the time and the world does not end. The fact we are all
here proves that.

As long as they don't try to create a new tld that is the same string of
letters as one that already exists, we are doing fine.

Some companies will start a tld, then sell sub-tlds maybe in a hierarchal
fashion. Thats ok too.

Some company may not have a business plan at all. They might start and run a
tld so they can give a free domain name away to anyone that buys their
mouthwash. Who cares?

Two words apply to namespace IMHO. FREE ENTERPRISE

Chris McElroy
http://www.kidsearchnetwork.org/forum/

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, December 26, 2005 9:42 AM
Subject: [ga] Top Level Domain or Second Level Domain?


> 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/