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:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
FYI, they're not alone.

Yesterday The Economist magazine (the one in which ICANN is posting its CEO recruitment ads) released a podcast 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]> 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