|
Lyman Chapin
- posted on 2000-10-04 08:35:04
|
|
I support the creation of many new top-level domains, but deciding which specific TLDs to create should be driven bottom-up by people who want to use and operate them, not top-down by ICANN policy.
|
|
Donald Langenberg
- posted on 2000-10-01 18:55:36
|
|
Depends. What's a union? I know how it's defined in the U.S., but is it the same thing in Japan? In Paraguay? In Ukraine? My point here is that in the new international world of the Internet, what is reasonable may be geographically and culturally variable. Your question invites a yes-or-no answer, which I suspect you intend as a pro-union vs anti-union answer. It ain't that simple.
|
|
Emerson Tiller, J.D., Ph.D.
- posted on 2000-09-17 20:36:51
|
|
Yes. I don't see the need to restrict TLDs, whether it be .union or .boss.
An important question will be, however, whether there should be restrictions on who can use the .union TLD and who would decide upon those restrictions.
|
|
Lawrence Lessig
- posted on 2000-09-14 00:27:00
|
|
Simple principle: minimize monopoly
power.
That means increase the number of
TLDs as quickly as feasible, and allow
the system to provide clear channels for
expression.
I would support a .union TLD, though I'd
be eager to see a non-English TLD. The
issue in my view is not whether there is
sufficient sentiment to support a new
TLD. The issue is whether there is a
technical reason not to.
|
|
Harris Miller
- posted on 2000-09-12 10:54:03
|
|
I want to see what the new top-level domain name system yields before making a final judgment on any single top-level domain proposal. However, I do sense substantial sentiment for a .union TLD.
|
|
Karl Auerbach
- posted on 2000-09-11 11:51:23
|
|
I support the creation of a very number of new top level domains, perhaps on the order of 10,000 per year.
I'd let those who run these new TLDs decide whether they want to impose a charter on its use, and similarly, impose the burden of enforcement on those TLD operators, thus leaving ICANN entirely out of the question of charter and charter enforcement.
So in answer to your question - yes I believe that .union is a valid thing to have. (As a child I was tought never to cross a picket line, so I understand the value of having a clear voice for organized labor.)
However, as I said, from ICANN's point of view, the semantic meaning of .union ought to be invisible.
See: http://www.cavebear.com/ialc/platform.htm#dnspol-tldpol
(I've had people say that my lottery idea isn't a good one, and I accept the fact that there may be better techniques to chose who gets new TLDs - I'd like to hear concrete alternatives to my strawman.)
|
