DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[nc-org] Re: ORG and COM

>>> Cary Karp <ck@nrm.se> 08/28/01 02:23PM >>>

>I was not referring to the contents of the two TLDs. I was referring
>to their operational policies. The last time I looked, when VeriSign
>was asked to register a second-level name in the one, it recommended
>the registration of the same string (if available) in the other, and
>NET as well.

That kind of duplicate marketing is precisely what the NCDNHC principles
are targeting. Yet, despite that, ORG and COM are very different
in composition.

>If our TF is on a track towards recommending that newORG be operated
>without any eligibility restrictions, what need is there for concern
>with the demographic differences between the registrant bases of
>oldORG and COM, or any other unrestricted TLD? 

It shows that end-user self-selection does provide a firm basis
for differentiating TLDs.  You say "an unrestricted TLD is an
unrestricted TLD." That is not correct, I think - indeed, I think
everything we know about the demand for domain names
tells us otherwise. Most end users select registration in TLDs based
on the semantics of the TLD. Not all, but the vast majority.

> It is reasonable enough to want to prevent ORG from becoming a clone
> of COM.

>How do you envision controlling the attributes of any TLD registrant
>base without articulating registration criteria that differentiate
>the one TLD from the other?

I rebel against the whole notion that we need to "control the
attributes of the TLD registrant base." I think it's costly, unnecessary,
and overly restrictive. Such control restricts freedom without adding
anything of value to the Internet. What we need to do is project
an identity and let users decide whether they want to be associated
with it.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>