Re: ICANN approves new TLD...
- From: Steve Baker <ice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: technocracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:20:47 -0500
Hunter <hunters@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> New TLDs...
>
> .biz, .info, .name, .pro, .museum, .aero, .coop
Given the nearly limitless TLD space, can anyone explain to me the logic
behind not creating TLD's that everyone seems to want, like .web, .sex,
.xxx, .kids, .games, .fun, .health, .etc, .etc? It's not as if more TLD's
would overwhelm the DNS server space, in fact it would probably more evenly
distribute the load.
And .sex and .xxx is not just a good idea for porn sites. Given this
countries puriten march to ban all web sites, wouldn't it make banning porn
sites that much easier if they all ended in .sex or .xxx? No need to filter
on content, just TLD, and it's not like the porn industry would even
mind -- they want their .sex or .xxx TLD, I say give it to 'em.
Since the reason for so few additional TLDs isn't technical and many are
hardly politically incorrect, I can only assume the reason comes down to
creating artificial scarcity in order to line someones pockets. Basically
the new TLDs are either for additional business namespace (.biz, .aero) (who
were going to throttle someone if they didn't get more namespace), to remove
personal names from the business namespace (.name, .pro) or non-profit type
orgs (.museum, .coop). Only .info looks to be a generic TLD, but would seem
to me to only have limited appeal.
These new domain names aren't anything to cheer about if you ask me.
- Steve
Other related posts:
