[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names
"Dave Crocker" <email@example.com> wrote
> The modified text I suggested calls for a gTLD to have some associated
> which describes its intended use. The association between that text and
> the gTLD string is the intended "meaning". The presence of that meaning
> intended to underscore the mnemonic potential for the gTLD.
> I suspect what Milton is forgetting is that all strings with a "meaning"
> not have it inherently. It is through association with other things in
> world that we impart that meaning. Hence, there is nothing in the least
> wrong, or even unusual, to refer to the string "zzz" as having meaning,
> given a legitimate associative context.
Exactly right - as Dave observes, the desirabilty of having a meaning does
not preclude the "meaning" being defined rather than being inherent.
A point which Philip has also made before is that new gTLDs ought preferably
(in the view of supporters of "meaningfulness") to have a meaning for more
than a narrow (national)set of internet users.
Another issue, however, is ambiguity and deliberate exploitation of such
ambiguity leading to confusion of meaning (or an identity crisis;-) which is
readily apparent from the alternative (mis)use of ISO 3166 ccTLDs for other
than the geographical significance which was the reason for their original
creation (eg .tm, .as, .md etc). Personally, I don't think that such
significant ambiguity would be desirable in any new gTLD.