New TLDs

[hans2010]

Originally Posted by DrStrabismus

You say that it's absurd, but you haven't actually said why you regard it as absurd.

I did in subsequent posts. I didn't see your response to the questions I posed (including the one you quoted, and also the later ones).

I do do find some of the things that Esther Dyson says to be pretty silly, for example:

If you take the article as a whole, you'll find some pretty solid arguments why TLD-expansion, at some point, is a bad idea.

[n5bb]

As I said earlier, I think that the arguments against additional TLD's are economic in nature, and most of Dyson's comments are related to the economies of this change.

• You could argue that it was absurd to create a TLD for every country and allow these to be used for any purpose, so that Fastmail.FM (Australians with servers in New York City) have no connection to the Federated States of Micronesia. But I haven't seen any big problems due to those many country code TLD's.
• Personally, I don't think it's reasonable to pay such a high amount for a TLD unless you have a well reasoned plan to attract users to that TLD. But normal domain names are already bid up to high prices.
• My guess is that some of the new TLD's will succeed. They will be popular and help users organize their decisions and memory about access to certain content. But others will be dismal failures. That's the way things work in our universe.
• In our market system, we allow people to attempt to sell things we would personally never consider. I would never purchase a rhinestone studded jacket, but some like them. I would also never buy Facebook stock with the current P/E of 146, but I won't prevent you from doing so. We might individually consider such purchases absurd, but someone else thinks they are rational (or at least desirable) decisions.
• So I choose to let ICANN set up additional TLD's without my complaint. It's really no different than entering a convenience store and being presented with 50 choices for candy. I choose to walk past all of them.

Bill

[DrStrabismus]

Originally Posted by hans2010

I did in subsequent posts.

You made remarks about large numbers that can apply to practically any noun and you made a spurious comparison with hosts.txt.

If your point is that having a googolplex of TLDs would be absurd in the same sense that making a googolplex of deck chairs would be then your point isn't worth making. Someone has to apply to run a TLD, and pay a lot of money before it exists - the number is never going to be absurd in that sense.

hosts.txt had to contain every public hostname that existed, and was genuinely flat, which gave it severe scaling problems. However many TLDs are added DNS is never going to be flat. The only scaling limitation is in the root servers, and presumably the number of TLDS is not going to be expanded faster than the capacity of the root servers to deal them.

I didn't see your response to the questions I posed (including the one you quoted, and also the later ones.

You aren't asking sensible questions.

I think what will happen is that big organizations are going have their own TLDs, most large & medium size companies will stick with ccTLDs, .com etc, and the new general purpose TLDs will mostly appeal to individuals or small businesses. There are minor winners and minor losers. The winners are mostly the public - if it annoys some "B Ark" people, I can live with that.

[hans2010]

Originally Posted by n5bb

most of Dyson's comments are related to the economies of this change.

Two points: 1. "most of...", but not all. 2. Economic arguments are still valid. So the question is whether something with an economic cost is "worth it". Reasonable people can disagree on whether the benefits outweigh the costs (or whether significant benefits even exist).

Originally Posted by DrStrabismus

You made remarks about large numbers that can apply to practically any noun and you made a spurious comparison with hosts.txt.

In an analogy, there's some part that's relevant, and some part that's not. That's why it's called an analogy. If you attack the part that's not relevant, it doesn't mean that the relevant part is "spurious". You didn't say why that particular analogy is spurious in its entirety.

The hosts.txt analogy provides relevance in that it helps us to visualize (in a general way) a scenario where arbitrary registrations are allowed at the top level... that's all. Nobody said any future scenario would exactly match that situation in every detail.

Regarding the following two comments:

Originally Posted by n5bb

Personally, I don't think it's reasonable to pay such a high amount for a TLD unless you have a well reasoned plan to attract users to that TLD.

Originally Posted by DrStrabismus

Someone has to apply to run a TLD, and pay a lot of money before it exists - the number is never going to be absurd in that sense... The only scaling limitation is in the root servers, and presumably the number of TLDS is not going to be expanded faster than the capacity of the root servers to deal them.

I can agree it's possible that cost barriers and scaling limitations will prevent us from ever reaching a "point of absurdity" in TLD-expansion. If that's your position, then I don't see that we disagree on whether there's a "point of absurdity" in theory, just whether it could ever be reached. If you're saying we can't ever reach it, I can only say I'm not certain about that, and I hope you're right.

I should point out that we currently have the technology for a database to manage a fan-out of millions (as the DNS currently does under ".com"), even at the root of a hierarchy. The YahooID namespace is in the many millions, and they give them out for free. Doing the same thing to the DNS root is not prevented by cost or scalability limitations (or if it were, those limitations would be overcome before too long), only policy limitations.

Dyson concedes that her opinions are just that (wording such as "I do think", "if I am right", "there could well be"). Nobody can predict the future with certainty. My opinion is that her arguments are still stronger than the counterarguments presented. I can appreciate that others have a different opinion. Only time will tell.

Cheers.

[DrStrabismus]

Originally Posted by hans2010

In an analogy, there's some part that's relevant, and some part that's not. That's why it's called an analogy. If you attack the part that's not relevant, it doesn't mean that the relevant part is "spurious". You didn't say why that particular analogy is spurious in its entirety.

The hosts.txt analogy provides relevance in that it helps us to visualize (in a general way) a scenario where arbitrary registrations are allowed at the top level... that's all.

But you're comparing a situation where having a large number of top-level objects became unworkable with one where it's a non-issue in order to imply that the latter may be absurd. This makes your analogy completely spurious.

Nobody said any future scenario would exactly match that situation in every detail.
.

I'd say that your position now boils down to: if the increase in the number of TLD were managed in an absurd way, then the increase might be absurd.

[David]

Denny was in third place, behind two other cars. They drove past us, and when they came back around for the checkered flag, Denny was by himself; he won the race. When asked how he had overtaken two cars on the final lap, he simply smiled and said that when he saw the starter wag one finger, meaning it was the last lap, he got a flash, and he said to himself, “I will win this race.” One of the racers ahead of him spun off the track, the other locked up his wheels and gave Denny an easy opening to pass. “It’s never too late,” Denny said to Mark. “Things change.”
― Garth Stein, The Art of Racing in the Rain

[hans2010]

Originally Posted by DrStrabismus

But you're comparing a situation where having a large number of top-level objects became unworkable with one where it's a non-issue in order to imply that the latter may be absurd. This makes your analogy completely spurious.

OK, whatever. The analogy was in parentheses because it wasn't essential to my point. I had asked whether you think having a TLD for every IP would be absurd. You didn't answer, but since you refer to this scenario as a "non-issue" (and, since you keep attacking my points), then it seems that your answer is "no" (which is fine with me... no hard feelings).

I'd say that your position now boils down to: if the increase in the number of TLD were managed in an absurd way, then the increase might be absurd.

My position is exactly as I stated, no decoding is needed. I'd say that your position (since you keep avoiding stating one) now boils down to: you are certain that TLDs will never be managed in an absurd way, period.

It's fine with me if that's your position (and as I said before, I hope you're right). No need to be shy about stating it!

Just sayin'....

[DrStrabismus]

Originally Posted by hans2010

OK, whatever. The analogy was in parentheses because it wasn't essential to my point. I had asked whether you think having a TLD for every IP would be absurd. You didn't answer, but since you refer to this scenario as a "non-issue" (and, since you keep attacking my points), then it seems that your answer is "no" (which is fine with me... no hard feelings)....

What you are saying has nothing to do with the real world.

[hans2010]

Originally Posted by DrStrabismus

What you are saying has nothing to do with the real world.

I understand that your views are different from mine. As I said before, I hope yours turn out to be right.

Have a nice day.

[DrStrabismus]

It's not a different view because I don't know what you view is. You have steadfastly refused to write anything of any substance.

[hans2010]

Originally Posted by DrStrabismus

It's not a different view because I don't know what you view is. You have steadfastly refused to write anything of any substance.

My view is the same as expressed in the Dyson article (to summarize, the view is that some forms of TLD-expansion, that have been or are under consideration, are likely to be detrimental to the public interest).

I have no position beyond what Dyson stated. You expressed some disagreement with her article, which is what I meant by "different view".

I'm OK with you having a different view on the topic. And perhaps I have an unclear way of expressing myself, and I apologize for that. But I'm not sure it's fair for you to keep saying that everything I write is either "spurious" or nothing of substance. I'm only saying, "uh... what she said". And if you think Dyson's article is spurious, you might try writing to her, because she's probably more influential on this topic than I am.

[Tsunami]

Some of these new TLDs make sense.
.music, .mail, .inc, .app, .online, .site, .blog, .news, ....

But please don't let them approve stuff like .pizza or TLDs for any big city.

There are over 200 sovereign nations in the world, all of them have functioning ccTLDs. OK, not all of them are widely used, and some are exremely restricted in use (.kp, .va, .bf, etc come into mind) but for sure over 200 ccTLDs are operative in addition to the gTLDs we have know for a while such as .com, .net, .org, .info, ...

So let's say that we have well over ccTLDs already running, because some non sovereign states also were given ccTLDs nonetheless that became in use (.gl, .tf, .sh, .as, .ax, .cc, ... to name just a few)

To add even more TLDs is just going to make finding the right website like looking for a needle in a haystack. We won't be able to see the forest from the trees.



Imagine I want to order a concert ticket for a gig of Bruce Springsteen. Let's assume it is in the US so that we don't have to take other ccTLDs into consideration. Let's imagine the concert is in Carnegy Hall, NYC.

Will I need to go to brucespringsteen.com? brucespringsteen.shop? brucespringsteen.music? brucespringsteen.buy? carnegyhall.us? carnegyhall.buy? carnegyhall.buy? carnegyhall.shop ?

And then this is a relatively easy one. Imagine you're dealing with a concert overseas and you have to keep other ccTLDs into consideration too. Or imagine Carnegy Hall would register its own TLD...




We already have that many extentions. Would logics not dictate to fully develop them first before creating new suffixes?

[n5bb]

I think that nearly everyone would use Google or Bing to find the website URL. That's what I do.

Bill

[William9]

I agree with Bill. For that matter, maybe it's bruce.e.springsteen. The TLD (in this case .net) shouldn't be a barrier to finding stuff on the Web.

[Tsunami]

As I said in another topic: sometimes fan websites would appear on top of the results rather than the official site ; and not every fan website is well maintained and up to date.

With new apps, new TLDs, new social networks, ... etc coming up so rapidly, the internet is becoming very complex compared to just a decade ago. I fear it may get a bit too complicated for some ; if you have too many options to choose from, it makes choosing the right option even harder ...

And maybe it would be useful to assure that every suffix currently existing works properly rather than creating a whole set of new ones. For example .kp, .ss, .bf, .cf, .sx, .mf, ... are hardly used at all, registering one is extremely complex, and some are in the root while remaining completely unused (eg .sj, .bv, .eh, ...)