Quote:
Originally Posted by n5bb
I think the point is why any specific number of TLD names should be considered "absurd".
|
So it sounds like your position is basically (to put it mathematically) that "there is no positive integer N, such that N is larger than the current number of TLDs, and such that having N TLDs would be absurd." Is that your position? How about if N were equal to the number of IP addresses in existence? (That was, in some sense, the situation before DNS was invented, since the namespace was flat, and hence each hostname was, in effect, a top-level object... and if they didn't think having that many top-level objects was a good idea then, then it probably isn't a good idea ever).
If the above scenario is not absurd (and I'm pretty sure it is), then how about if N equals one googolplex? I'm pretty sure that would be absurd, and I'd like to assume you'd agree! I could be wrong! (Actually, this conversation is becoming absurd... but your comment seems to imply the mathematically-stated position above... just sayin'.)
Getting back to reality, do you think that any text string that anyone wants to see become a TLD should immediately be created as such? That would be a way (that is operationally feasible) to test the question of whether TLD proliferation, at some point or in some scenario, could wind up becoming absurd. Of course, that's not current Internet policy, but we do see that things change over time, and so it could happen, if enough people agreed to it. I would not.