[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]It sometimes seems as though ICANN's plan to open up the Internet's top level to an unlimited number of new suffixes is coming under constant criticism. That's partly because those sending the loudest "don’t do it" messages would have us believe that they speak for an overwhelming majority.
Not so. And it's sometimes useful to redress the balance. Case in point: a couple of recent news stories show that there are also many people in favour of new gTLDs. In the Washington Post, political law attorney Matthew T. Sanderson argues that a .POL domain would help protect politicians from cybersquatters. And computer maker Hewlett-Packard has written to ICANN asking the organisation to change its 3-character-minimum rule and allow it to go for a .HP TLD.
It's nice to hear about people reacting positively to new TLDs and trying to find ways to maximise their potential benefits, rather than just reading about the anti-innovation brigade all the time.[/FONT]
Pour en lire plus...
Not so. And it's sometimes useful to redress the balance. Case in point: a couple of recent news stories show that there are also many people in favour of new gTLDs. In the Washington Post, political law attorney Matthew T. Sanderson argues that a .POL domain would help protect politicians from cybersquatters. And computer maker Hewlett-Packard has written to ICANN asking the organisation to change its 3-character-minimum rule and allow it to go for a .HP TLD.
It's nice to hear about people reacting positively to new TLDs and trying to find ways to maximise their potential benefits, rather than just reading about the anti-innovation brigade all the time.[/FONT]
Pour en lire plus...
