No Brainer

This strikes me as a no-brainer. I cannot imagine good reasons why the artificial scarcity of TLDs should be retained. There was and is nothing magic about having 7 global generic TLDs, no larger purpose that was or is served when the initial design implemented these 7 only, and nothing (as I understand it) on a technical level that would militate against adding new ones. Namespace is effectively unlimited, and the market is the best -- indeed, the only -- viable means of allocating this resource. The value of existing second-level names in existing TLDs will, of course, decline -- but the policy should not be chosen on the basis of protecting existing nameholders. TLDs can be allocated on a first-come first-served basis -- if someone wants to start a .biz, or .stuff, or .computer, or .store, or .law, or . . . . . registry, why should we stop them from doing that? The tools to navigate through this more complex space are available, or will be developed in response to consumer demand if those TLDs are successful in attracting registrants.

[ Previous | Next ]