- Joined
- Jun 6, 2002
- Messages
- 2,234
- Reaction score
- 2
I say, NO!
It seems with every roll-out, we are creating more "redundancy" in the name-space. How many Blah dot whatever's do we need?
yes, the DNS can handle thousands of new gTLD's, but what of it? Weren't domain names meant to be easier to remember. How on earth would we keep them all straight.
And search engines. It's hard enough to get your website/URL address in the top spot as it is. With most people going no more than 2 pages deep, and most non-com's having little type-in value, what is the real benefit of having more gTLDs? If you can succintly answer this question, than I would like to hear it (really)
I know what someone is going to say... We need "competition". I originally bought into this argument. Afterall for captialism to work, you need good, healthy competition. Why not have it in the name-space? I can give you one good reason: The DNS is not an economic system, rather it is a neatly defined relay system that doesn't "Care" if it routes .com addresses or .biz. Therefore, it requires no "competition" to stay "healthy"
Probably the only reason I can think of (and it's not a real good one) as to why we need new gTLD's is to keep ICANN Registeries up and running. We can't have them go under (really). You need "new" product, and domains happen to be their business. My guess is a lot of the smaller operations will fold in a few years time. Yes, other registrars could take over their domains, but it would cause a "mistrust" in the system, which would hinder the DNS, not help it. IF a business can't rely on a registery to keep it's doors open, we have problems. My suggestion to ICANN would be to adopt a model of business much like sports teams have. For instance the richer markets (Verisign's, Register.com's, et al) would have to "share" with the smaller markets. The smaller markets would have to perform however to stay in business, but they wouldn't have to feel the economic pinch when the domain business is down.
What say you? :evil:
It seems with every roll-out, we are creating more "redundancy" in the name-space. How many Blah dot whatever's do we need?
yes, the DNS can handle thousands of new gTLD's, but what of it? Weren't domain names meant to be easier to remember. How on earth would we keep them all straight.
And search engines. It's hard enough to get your website/URL address in the top spot as it is. With most people going no more than 2 pages deep, and most non-com's having little type-in value, what is the real benefit of having more gTLDs? If you can succintly answer this question, than I would like to hear it (really)
I know what someone is going to say... We need "competition". I originally bought into this argument. Afterall for captialism to work, you need good, healthy competition. Why not have it in the name-space? I can give you one good reason: The DNS is not an economic system, rather it is a neatly defined relay system that doesn't "Care" if it routes .com addresses or .biz. Therefore, it requires no "competition" to stay "healthy"
Probably the only reason I can think of (and it's not a real good one) as to why we need new gTLD's is to keep ICANN Registeries up and running. We can't have them go under (really). You need "new" product, and domains happen to be their business. My guess is a lot of the smaller operations will fold in a few years time. Yes, other registrars could take over their domains, but it would cause a "mistrust" in the system, which would hinder the DNS, not help it. IF a business can't rely on a registery to keep it's doors open, we have problems. My suggestion to ICANN would be to adopt a model of business much like sports teams have. For instance the richer markets (Verisign's, Register.com's, et al) would have to "share" with the smaller markets. The smaller markets would have to perform however to stay in business, but they wouldn't have to feel the economic pinch when the domain business is down.
What say you? :evil:
