RE: [ga] URGENT: Moratorium on all additions to confusing GTLDs and ccTLDs Required.

[R.Gaetano@iaea.org]

I have a different URGENT proposal.

End the de-facto moratorium on the addition of new gTLDs that has been going
on.

Regards
Roberto


> -----Original Message-----
> From: matt hooker [mailto:matthooker@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, 22 November 1999 2:55 AM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Cc: wg-c@dnso.org; wg-b@dnso.org; announce@dnso.org;
> amadeu@nominalia.com; bburr@ntia.doc.gov; apincus@doc.gov;
> eric.menge@sba.gov; edyson@edventure.com; apisan@servidor.unam.mx;
> quaynor@ghana.com; tom.bliley@mail.house.gov
> Subject: [ga] URGENT: Moratorium on all additions to 
> confusing GTLDs and
> ccTLDs Required.
> 
> 
> November 19, 1999
> 
> To the ICANN Board of Directors, The entire ICANN Membership, 
> the DNSO, the 
> General Assembly, Working Group C, all other Working Groups, and to 
> everyone, everywhere concerned about allowing the Internet to 
> realize its 
> fullest potential;
> 
> A Proposal for an Immediate Moratorium on the Addition of any New
> gTLDs or ccTLDs; and a Proposal to Restructure the current TLD system.
> by Matthew Hooker. Webmaster@Net-Speed.com, matthooker@hotmail.com
> 
> I, Matthew Hooker, am an active participant in the General Assembly,
> as well as Working Groups C and B. I am a recent arrival to 
> this process, 
> having joined  at the beginning of the recent November 1999 
> meetings in Los 
> Angeles.
> 
> I have found that there is a tremendous push, to approve new gTLD,s
> as quickly as possible, and as many as possible. This push is due
> to ideological, political or financial interests that have nothing
> to do with the real interests of the Internet as a whole. I am
> calling for an immediate moratorium of the approval of new
> gTLDs. This issue needs to have much more debate, with a much greater
> public participation. This debate needs to be publicized.
> 
> I will summarize my arguments below as to why no new gTLDs should be
> allowed, as well as my proposal to consider a restructuring of the
> entire gTLD and ccTLD system, which has already become somewhat of a
> free-for-all, and is leading (should more TLDs be introduced) to chaos
> and anarchy.
> 
> In short, I want the Internet to be all things to all people, but most
> importantly, I want to see an Internet that allows for easy, fast and
> clear and understandable interaction by humans, among humans and for
> humans.
> 
> Some potentially fatal mistakes have already been made that I believe
> need to be corrected if the Internet is to reach its full potential.
> 
> I realize that many of you reading this have already made up 
> your minds that 
> you will favor the introduction of new TLDs, and believe that 
> you have heard 
> all of the arguments before. Please reconsider. I believe what I will 
> present here is a compelling argument to allow no new TLDs, 
> and indeed 
> restructure the present system. This argument has nothing 
> whatsoever to do 
> with registries, for-profit or not; it has nothing 
> ideological, financial or 
> political about it. It is for the greater good of the 
> Internet as a whole 
> and humans everywhere.
> 
> At the ICANN, DNSO and working group meetings this November in Los
> Angeles, I was accused, by those I discussed this with, of 
> the following 
> errors, which I will rebut: being on the "dark side!", 
> wanting to turn the 
> Internet into a directory, wanting to preserve the current 
> power structure, 
> wanting to preserve my own financial self interests. (Yes, I 
> own a number of 
> web sites and domain names which I am developing into web sites and 
> businesses.)
> 
> I heard many arguments by those supporting more TLDs like: "in every
> revolution there is an overthrow of the existing ruling class", "the
> Internet is controlled by big business and the introduction of new
> TLDs is the only way to change this", "there is too much domain
> speculation and we must introduce new TLDs to reduce or eliminate
> this", "there are no more good domain names available", and "we should
> introduce new TLDs to make more available. Many of the people in
> favor of introducing new TLDs favor an unlimited number of them.
> Regardless of your opinion regarding the veracity of these statements,
> the point is that these statements have nothing to do with the real
> issue that I am addressing: A structure for the Domain Name Service
> ( DNS ) that allows for clear and easy human usage of the Internet.
> 
> The DNS is supposed to make the Internet human-friendly or
> user-friendly. Unfortunately, the incorrect implementation of a
> good idea has led to a confusing and hard to use Internet, which
> requires the use of "search engines" and "directories" that are
> very complex, most often don't give the user what they want, and
> take a lot of time to use. Although some may say this current system
> "works", it doesn't work nearly as well as it could or should.
> 
> The current system of ccTLDs also has served to severely limit the
> potential and ease of use of the Internet. The Internet can be a truly
> global, easy to use community. It can be all things to all people.
> If text or voice are used to communicate, then the only boundaries
> should be those of language, and machine translation will soon
> eliminate this boundary. Instead of creating such a truly global
> community, we have, with the ccTLDs simply extended the status quo
> of current national, political boundaries to the Internet - the one
> place which could be above all national and political borders and
> boundaries. So, instead of having just 1 global Internet, we really
> have over 250, and many people want to increase this number! Instead
> of having 1 common place where everyone can form a community, we have
> hundreds. Thus for a Spanish speaking person, there are over 
> 20 Internets in 
> the Spanish language - corresponding to the 
> national/political boundaries 
> and ccTLDs. For the English speaker, not only are there the various 
> english-speaking ccTLDs, but there are also the .COM, .NET 
> and .ORG, with a 
> huge push to add 6 to 10 more for a "test period" leading to 
> hundreds more! 
> Just as bad is the fact that these three gTLDs are supposed 
> to be used for 
> different types of businesses or web sites, whether they be 
> for-profit, 
> Internet-related, or non-profit; yet these is no way to 
> enforce this rule, 
> so the rule or guideline means nothing. How absurd.
> 
> Instead of bringing the world together, these gTLD and ccTLD 
> extensions are 
> separating it, mostly for the sake of more money to be made 
> and issues of 
> control. In addition, there are now a potential of over 250 
> homes or web 
> sites for any given name, whether it be "Sony" or "GreatCars" or 
> "VirtualOffice." This is extremely confusing, and does not 
> lead to human 
> ease of use, but to chaos.
> 
> Ideally there should be just 1 way to find "Sony" or "GreatCars" or
> "VirtualOffice", to take 3 examples. Why? So humans can use 
> the Internet 
> quickly, easily and understandably, without the usage of bots, search 
> engines, etc. One of the members of the Names Council responded to my 
> argument with "let the search engines do it" (referring to 
> finding a site or 
> some information for a user). However this is not the best way.
> 
> Search engines should not be required for a user to go to 
> Sony's site. In 
> addition, search engines, which will have to be used, of 
> course, for many 
> things, and which can provide an excellent service and function, are 
> for-profit businesses with agendas of their own. Obviously 
> there will be one 
> "Sony" and one "GreatCars" in each language. This is as it 
> should be, for a 
> common language is necessary for comprehension or 
> communication at the 
> present time. But there should only be 1 in each language, otherwise 
> confusion sets in. Adding any new TLDs will make this 
> situation even worse.
> 
> Many ccTLDs are being used globally, so the problem is 
> getting worse by the 
> month. For those interested in adding new gTLDs, I would 
> respond that there 
> already are many of them, and at least dozens more to come: 
> the ccTLDs 
> which, of course also can function as gTLDs. A partial 
> current list of 
> ccTLDs acting as gTLDs:
> 
> - .NU - this means "nude in French and Portuguese, and "now" 
> in Swedish, and 
> some other Scandinavian languages, and "in a jiffy" in 
> German, just to name 
> a few. It is also being used as a general gTLD.
> 
> - .MD - this is being used for medical related sites for 
> english speakers.
> 
> - .TO - this is being used as a general gTLD. It also has meanings in
> several languages.
> 
> - .AM - this is being used for radio and music sites.
> 
> - .ID - I spoke with a member from Indonesia who informed me 
> that big plans 
> were underway to market this ccTLD as a gTLD for information or
> identification.
> 
> How long before other ccTLDs with extensions that have a 
> meaning in one or 
> more languages are used globally? There are already hundreds 
> of approved 
> gTLDs among the ccTLD's. To add more is absurd, confusing and 
> leads to more 
> chaos.
> 
> The aspect of the Internet that has the most to do with 
> almost all users is 
> the name associated with a web site. We humans use names, not 
> numbers, and 
> that is why a particular name should not be duplicated on the 
> internet.
> 
> Having "extensions" like .MD, .COM, .NET, .ID, ... only makes 
> things more 
> confusing, and web sites more difficult to find for humans. 
> The addition of 
> more gTLDs like .firm, .shop, etc will make things far worse 
> for humans. We 
> humans remember a name, not a name plus an extension. It is 
> easy to remember 
> GreatCars, to use a random example, and to remember what the 
> name means, and 
> what going to that site will give one. These three items are 
> what, to the 
> vast majority of people, the Internet should do. Obviously, 
> the Internet can 
> and will do and be much more than this, but these three functions are 
> necessary, and easy to achieve. To have to remember and differentiate 
> between GreatCars.com, GreatCars.net, GreatCars.org, GreatCars.nu,
> GreatCars.to, GreatCars.ID, GreatCars.co.uk, and any other 
> extensions, of 
> which there are more all the time, is too difficult to do for 
> humans, and 
> defeats a primary purpose of the Internet, and leads to confusion.
> 
> To add a .firm, .shop, .biz, etc. will only make the matter 
> much worse. (I 
> use GreatCars as a random example and have no connection with 
> it (or should 
> I say them! - my point exactly!) whatsoever, nor do I even 
> know of its 
> existence.)
> 
> 
> REBUTTAL OF OPPOSING ARGUMENTS
> 
> 
> I would like to rebut a few opposing arguments before I 
> explain how we can 
> improve the current system.
> 
> The argument that there are no more available good domain 
> names, so we 
> should add new gTLDs. Adding new gTLDs will only serve to 
> confuse the user 
> and make it harder for the user to find what they are looking 
> for. Using our 
> example, in addition to GreatCars, there can also be 
> FineCars, SuperCars, 
> GoodGars, BestCars, FastCars, HotCars, GreatNewCars, GreatUsedCars, 
> GreatCarsOnSale, GreatCarsNow, GreatAutos, GreatJeeps, 
> GreatAutomobiles, 
> GreatVehicles... the list goes on and on... also: 
> LosAngelesGreatCars, 
> GreatCarsLA, GreatCarsNY, GreatCarsLondon, GreatCarsBombay, 
> ... There are
> enough english combinations of potential auto sites for 
> everyone. True, 
> there is only one exact "GreatCars", and if that is the name 
> you want, then 
> buy it. If you can't afford it, find another name, but not another 
> "GreatCars" that will only serve to confuse the public and users.
> 
> The argument that registrars won't be able to make money on new TLDs.
> Too bad. The Internet being all that it can be, and reaching 
> its potential, 
> is more important.
> 
> Obviously, it is going to be difficult, because of existing 
> parties, with 
> their own interests, to bring the DNS system back to where it 
> should be - 
> just 1 truly global internet. But this is possible to do, and 
> in a later 
> e-mail  I will address and provide a solution to this task. 
> Impossible is 
> not part of my vocabulary.
> 
> For the moment, however, it is imperative that we not give in 
> to a small 
> group of people who have selfish political, financial or ideological 
> agendas, and who wish to add more gTLDs to the already 
> confusing, and ever 
> increasing amount and range of TLD being used.
> 
> We must put an immediate moritorium on the addition of any new gTLDs.
> There is no consensus in Working Group C. I am adamently 
> opposed to any more 
> TLDs. I believe I am not the only one. This, and other 
> working groups have 
> been operating without any real public participation or 
> publicity, and the 
> stakes are too high for this to remain so.
> 
> The ability of the Internet to reach its full potential depends on us
> allowing it to have a structure that can best enable human 
> use. We have 
> already gone far in the wrong direction, and adding more TLDs 
> will increase 
> the problem. Let's put a stop to all this, and then give 
> ourselves some time 
> to fomulate a plan to correct the errors which have been made.
> 
> For the sake of the Internet,
> 
> Matt Hooker
> Webmaster@Net-Speed.com
> matthooker@hotmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>