If one assumed that .COM is the only TLD...
DLDs - Dash-Level-Domains can also be used.
People are able to select any extension, add a dash,
and expand the name space. Software has been
written to make DLDs look like TLDs.
DLDs have been useful in developing a sense for what
people want. -ONLINE.COM has been the leading
DLD for years. -INC.COM, -WEB.COM, -USA.COM
are also high on the list. .ONLINE, .INC, .WEB and .USA
are all now very active TLDs.
It appears people are rapidly transitioning from kludges
they had to develop because of the artificial shortage of
TLDs, to the more open and free expansion of the TLD
name space. Many companies are helping to make that
happen, little by little...here are a few...
http://www.NameSlinger.com
http://www.pacificroot.com/ref_pacroottlds.shtml
http://www.adns.net/
http://a-i-s.net/
http://www.orsc.net
http://altregistry.com/
http://www.name-space.com
http://www.icann.org/tlds/ads1/NameSpace-gtld-appBP.html
http://www.New.Net
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg02817.html
http://www.icann.org/tlds/
Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-Arizona.com
http://www.DOT.Arizona
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 2:16 AM
Subject: Re: Competing Domain-Name Registries Creating Tower of Cyber-Babel
> It doesn't really matter, since, for the average user, there is only one
TLD,
> and that is COM.
>
> The whole concept of a TLD is an anachronism that does not apply to the
> interests of multinational businesses and organizations. It should be
made
> invisible to users who don't wish to specify it explicitly. I have long
> advocated a system that uses multiple hidden TLDs that are hashed from the
> second-level domain name, but nobody seems interested. For example, you
can
> take the first and last alphanumeric characters of a second-level domain
name,
> put x in front, and create a hashed TLD which you automatically append to
the
> name, so that the user doesn't have to enter it, for example:
>
> "ibm" entered in a browser generates "web.ibm.xim"
> "disneyland" entered in a browser generates "web.disneyland.xdd"
> "coca-cola" entered in a browser generates "web.coca-cola.xca"
>
> and so on.
>
> This randomly distributes second-level domains over 1296 implicit TLDs,
and
> since a given name can hash to only one TLD, the TLD can be computed from
the
> name, and so the user need only enter the second-level name. The "web."
on the
> front just provides a distinct hostname for the Web server for the
convenience
> of the domain owner. By doing this all the TLDs are eliminated (except
for
> those who still wish to type a TLD explicitly--obviously .COM et al. will
be
> around for some time to come), and you don't have this nonsense about a
hundred
> different companies trying to come up with hundreds of different TLDs.
>
> Nobody is ever going to visit domains with names like .shop, anyway, so it
> doesn't matter who actually owns domains in those TLDs.
>
> The current arrangement of TLDs is like requiring every company in the
U.S. to
> append the abbreviation of its home state to its name: IBM-NY,
Coca-Cola-GA,
> Adobe-CA, Microsoft-WA, and so on. It's a technical requirement that has
no
> utility from a mnemonic or business standpoint. By using implicit, hashed
TLDs,
> you can eliminate the need to specify a TLD explicitly, and you can
distribute
> the second-level domains evenly over a large number of TLDs without any
fear of
> duplication or any need to register any name for more than one TLD
(namely, the
> TLD to which it hashes).
>
> The glaring error being made by everyone right now is in the assumption
that
> more explicit TLDs are the answer. In fact, they just add to the problem,
by
> making a bad design worse. TLDs are for the computer and the occasional
> specialist to type in explicitly; for everyday use for businesses and the
like,
> the TLD should be inferred by the computer from the second-level name.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Fleming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "ietf@ietf. org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 01:06
> Subject: Competing Domain-Name Registries Creating Tower of Cyber-Babel
>
>
> > http://biz.yahoo.com/st/010705/27694.html
> > Competing Domain-Name Registries Creating Tower of Cyber-Babel
> > By James Ledbetter - European Executive Editor
> >
> > Proof of Concept TLD Development...and Multiple TLD Clusters
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12215.html
> > "Multiple TLD Clusters are new. There is merit in having redundancy.
> > Unfortunately, consumers will have to learn through their registrar
> > or registry, that they would be prudent to register in BOTH TLD Cluster
> > for the most reliable, stable service, with the widest reach."
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12574.html
> > RFC-2001-07-01-000 IPv8 Expansion of Proof of Concept TLD Development
> >
> >
> > Jim Fleming
> > http://www.DOT-Arizona.com
> > http://www.DOT.Arizona
> >
> >
> >
>
