On 6 July 2012 11:25, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


> As for demand, seeing the demand in the developed world, I can only assume
> that the demand may develop in the developing world.  Though Evan has
> argued well for the fact that new gTLDs are so much old tech and that no
> one really needs new gTLDs at all (allowing for the possible exception of
> IDNs).  So the two of you may have a common point on demand.
>

I wrote my answer to Adam before seeing this. ;-)

It's not that gTLDs are necessarily old-tech. At least one TLD is required
to enable many of the paths to Internet content to which I have been trying
to call attention as alternatives to a broad DNS namespace (QR codes, URL
shorteners, social media gateways, etc). There are needs -- especially in
the non-Latin-script realms, as Avri has noted -- where new TLDs are
desperately needed yesterday. My argument is against the stewardship of the
expansion of gTLDs being commandeered by the same domainer mentality that
created artificial shortages in ,COM in the first place. The current domain
industry adds innovation and value to the Internet in much the same way
that ticket scalpers/touts add innovation and value to live sports and
music. And IMO, the gTLD application pool has merely become a higher-stakes
domainer game, in which there are a handful of content providers surrounded
by a bunch of rich insider speculators (and a handful of monster wildcards
in Google, Amazon, Microsoft, etc).

- Evan