Thx for sharing.

I don't see this "disastrous" potential. Seems merely another 
substance-less talking point to me.

The most valid point I see with regards opposing gTLD expansion is that 
it would be extortion on brands [to which I reply they are clueless if 
they fall for it and get extorted, just ignore those false threats]...

Anybody read prof. Mueller's history of the DNS? Didn't you all felt 
that there should have been more than the few gTLDs added in the first 
place? Anybody think it would have been "disastrous?"

Anyhow I find it amazing how one of the best popular publication around 
(for me [The Economist]) also falls prey to information fads and fashion 
(here, FUD) and other such information cascades.

Seems like N. Economides' points on the dynamics of financial exuberance 
and crashes are right on point.

Nicolas

On 12/01/2012 2:03 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> FYI, they're not alone.
>
> Yesterday The Economist magazine (the one in which ICANN is posting 
> its CEO recruitment ads) released a podcast 
> <http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/01/babbage-january-11th-2012?fsrc=nlw%7Cnewe%7C1-11-2012%7Cnew_on_the_economist> 
> dealing with ICANN (amongs other things, the Consumer Electronics Show 
> in Vegas got top billing and the ICANN comments start at 3:45).
>
> The discussion of the issue includes the comment that the new gTLD 
> program "could be a disaster".
>
> - Evan
>
>
>
> On 12 January 2012 13:11, warigia bowman <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>     There was an ICANN story on NPR this morning. It made it sound
>     like the extra domain names are a big mistake, and are going to
>     add confusion to the Internet, and force people to do defensive
>     spending to protect that IP in cyberspace.
>
>     Thoughts?
>
>     Rigia
>
>
>
>