Ross Wm. Rader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And my notion that TLD's should serve individuated purposes and not > > be treated as a first-come-first-served name-a-teria comes from > > over a decade of seeing the effects of misdirected and lost email, > > and mistyped commands, and confused and disappointed end-users who > > can't find the resources they're looking for -- for instance, the > > ones who got skunked into the wrong service because queernet.com > > came along a few years after queernet.org and ran a commercial site > > -- but since many newbies assumed that a .com was the place to find > > things, they never found the FREE information they needed, or it > > took weeks. > > > And my notion is that they shouldn't. We will never get agreement on > this, but we will get agreement on giving you the freedom to create a > TLD with an "individuated purpose" and me the freedom to create one > that doesn't - and over time, the market can tell us who has the > superior approach. > > Besides, the DNS is not a directory, it isn't an application, it > isn't, it isn't, it isn't. If you really want to provide users with > certainty then start building applications that will provide them > with it - don't rely on something that wasn't designed to do it, to > do it. Give your customers more credit - after all, they figured out > 888 numbers.
But many haven't figured out 877, and most haven't guessed at 866 numbers yet. -- I used to be indecisive, now I'm not so sure.
