"Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There aren't any [people operating TLDs I haven't heard about].
> But you're welcome t prove me wrong :-)
>> What criteria would be used to determine what TLDs would be added to the
>> root, and why should people who aren't added feel any differently than
>> the people whose TLDs aren't added now?
Hmmm. I thought the question was pretty simple. Are the set of all TLDs
that people want added to the root unique? If not, whose TLDs get in?
Even if they are unique, which ones get added first? In either case,
you have a situation that is inherently unfair; no less fair than the
current situation (no new TLDs). Until a process is drawn up that everyone
who wants to operate a TLD will agree to, I don't see how we would have a
better situation than we have now (except for those people who are lucky
enough to get their TLD in the root when they want it).
Also, in response to Gene, I have some opinions about what TLDs should go
in, but that's the point -- they're just opinions, not really valid beyond
the uses I might put them to. (In general, I only care that they provide
the level of service that they claim to.) But if there are conflicts,
either in actual names, or other criteria (e.g. should a TLD for NICs be
added before one for PERsonal names), I don't see that we have reached
some kind of consensus point where everyone involved would agree on how
those conflicts would be resolved.
--gregbo
