RE: [wg-c] New gTLDs and ISPs (was: URGENT . . . )

["Sportack, Mark A, CSCIO" <msportack@att.com>]

Milton, Tony, et al

Thanks for initiating me in the time-honored tradition of WG-C in which
statements (and the people who profer them) are denigrated via the use of
inapplicable analogies delivered with satire and condescension (Thanks,
Milt), comments selectively quoted and taken out of context (Thanks, Tony),
or just wanton character assassination.  None of these tactics are worthy of
educated and sentient beings; traits that I have assumed universally
applicable throughout the WG-C committee. I continue to cling to this
assumption out of hope for the future of WG-C, despite the plethora of
evidence to the contrary that is so readily paraded in this forum. Rather
than follow the typical pattern of tit-for-tat, which has mired this group
in unproductivity for so long, I'll depart from this group's time-honored
traditions by focusing on the issues. 

For the record, in LA I was trying to establish a more productive line of
discussion focused on the practical and operational impacts of this group's
potential recommendations. Toward this end, I made three comments. The first
was to point out that TLDNS.com cannot be regarded as credible evidence of
the pent-up demand for new TLDs. Having crawled over their whois database, I
can assure you that it is little more than electronic speculation. The vast
majority of the names are either obviously trademark infringements, or
pornographic in nature. The paltry number of unique domain name holders,
relative to the tremendous number of registered domain names, is ample
evidence of the speculative nature of the investment in such names. 

My second comment was to support the findings of IBM, by stating that AT&T
has conducted anthropological studies that demonstrate an increased level of
user confusion as the number of TLDs increases. The point of diminishing
returns is 3. Milton, if you would like a personal explanation of how this
is different from your bad analogy, please feel free to contact me directly.
I'd be happy to educate you. Tony, at no time did I state that users
couldn't remember more than 3: to state that I did is incorrect, misleading,
inflammatory, and adds to the already horrendous noise-to-signal ratio that
this list incurs. 

My third comment was to point out that, during the last few months in which
I've lurked in this working group, I've noticed a disturbing trend: there
has been no attempt at understanding the operational impacts of namespace
expansion on the Internet. Virtually all comments have been avariciously,
selfishly, or academically motivated, with no regard for the actual effects
that recommendations will have on the Internet, or its broad base of diverse
users. My suggestion was to focus on how to best serve the Internet's user
community. All of its users, not just one or two constituencies.

My personal suggestion would be to endorse two priorities: 

1) Recommendations made by WG-C must not adversely affect the ubiquity of
the Internet (no logical partitioning should result from any namespace
expansion). 
2) Recommendations of the WG-C must not compromise the usability of the
Internet for any of its constituencies. This includes end-users and ISPs. 

To date, virtually all debate has centered on either the logistical
difficulties of protecting trademarks and intellectual property given
increased opportunity (id est, TLD expansion) for abuse; or an avaricious
desire to become the 'net's next billionaire. Both of these must be
considered distant runners-up, that pale in significance to ensuring the
continued ubiquity and usability of the Internet.

If anyone is interested in a meaningful exchange of ideas, I welcome your
contributions. If, on the other hand, you are only interested in immature
attacks, more bad analogies, or otherwise parading ignorance and/or
unprofessionalism, please don't waste bandwidth in this forum.

Mark Sportack


-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu]
Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 11:56 AM
To: A.M. Rutkowski
Cc: wg-c@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-c] New gTLDs and ISPs (was: URGENT . . . )




A.M. Rutkowski wrote:

> >         Mark Sportack, at the LA meeting, mentioned something about the
> > impact of new gTLDs on ISPs.  What do you believe the impact of new
gTLDs
> on ISPs
> >would be?
>
> Hi Jon,
>
> Didn't this accompany the assertion that they had
> done definitive research to show that human beings
> couldn't remember more than 3 TLDs?

That's right. This is in fact a revolutionary scientific finding. The city
of
Syracuse, always in the forefront of science, is in the process of
eliminating hundreds of restaurants, having learned that having more than
three or four confuses people. We'll start with the food industry and move
on
next to long distance carriers -- rumours are that there are hundreds of
them. We're looking forward to a city free of all the noisy yellow pages,
billboards and TV ads full of conflicting signposts, for fear that they will
cause massive highway crashes, just as all those confusing domain names
would
crash the Internet.

I myself am confused by the presence of more than 3 or 4 second-level
domains. Who can remember them all? Wouldn't it be easier if we reduced the
number to a few, e.g., IBM.com, ATT.com, and ICANN.org?