Question: Re extensions; candidates whom I'd otherwise eagerly endorse say bring 'em (many new ones)asap. Applauding a sense of urgency, I also think it's important *at this point* to clearly express preference/concerns re specific words. Will anyone do so in this Q&A forum?

Nominee Replies

Lyman Chapin - posted on 2000-10-09 18:23:45 I disagree with the premise that web content can or should be explicitly segregated into TLDs according to the meaning of the word that is chosen as the TLD name. The classic example is the popular .kids, which someone pointed out recently would be an excellent whois for pedophiles. The tools we need to create distinct and separate spaces in cyberspace - the equivalent of restricting porn shops to the red light district, for example - don't yet exist (although I hope they are not too far over the horizon). The DNS is not the right tool. I'd like to see many new TLDs, but I don't think that the words used to name those TLDs are (or should be) terribly important. Lawrence Lessig - posted on 2000-10-03 18:50:50 ICANN should not be in the business of picking words. A neutral standard of ability to manage is all there should be. Emerson Tiller, J.D., Ph.D. - posted on 2000-10-03 16:34:59 I would like to see words that allow for self-identification (whether by profession or interest) or assist parents in identifying information appropriate for children. As to a specific string of characters, I would not want to prejudice the current process with my choices. In fact, I don't have much preference for what the actual strings look like. Those who are proposing new TLDs propably have better idea of which strings would be finacially feasible to operate. More importantly, I'd like to open up the TLD process and not have ICANN generally choosing which TLDs should be granted. I suggest using an auction system to get these tough choices into the market and out of ICANN's hands.