new top level domains

[Louis Rosenfeld]

I'm wondering if folks in the library community are considering the
implications of the IAHC's (Internet International Ad Hoc Committee) new
domain suffixes?  I know there was a smidgen of discussion on this topic
in February, but I can't find much more on Web4Lib.  Pointers to related
discussions on other library-related mailing lists would be appreciated! 

For anyone who is wondering, the IAHC has essentially extended the
classification scheme for top level domains.  The following organizations
contributed to the now-dissolved IAHC: 

      Internet Society (ISOC) 
      Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) 
      Internet Architecture Board (IAB) 
      Federal Networking Council (FNC) 
      International Telecommunication Union (ITU) 
      International Trademark Association (INTA) 
      World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) 

Excellent materials describing the IAHC's charge and work, as well as an
often-hilarious archive of their open mailing list, are available at their
site (http://www.iahc.org). 

According to a press release from the International Telecommunications
Union (http://www.itu.int/PPI/press/releases/1997/itu-07.html), seven new
top level domains will be added to the three internationally-accepted
domains (.com, .org and .net): 

"The IAHC recommendations call for the creation, initially, of seven
additional generic TLDs (Top Level Domains) and a structure to allow
competing companies to register Internet domain names. The new domains
expected to be available will be: .firm (for businesses, .store (for
shops), .web (for organizations concentrating on WorldWide Web-related
activities), .arts (for cultural and entertainment-based organizations),
.rec (for organizations involved in recreation activities), .info (for
information services) and .nom (for individual web sites)." 

I bring this issue up because, after reviewing this list of top level
domains, it seems that the IAHC's classification scheme could have
extremely negative implications for the way the Internet works.  This
scheme seems very ambiguous and very confusing, and this confusion could
result in the collective head-scratching and bewilderment of a planetary
community of millions of Internet users.  I wonder if any librarians or
information scientists were able to play a role in creating this scheme,
and if not, why not? 

I don't want to denigrate the ambitious challenges faced by the IAHC,
regardless of whether or not librarians were involved.  And if our
community wasn't involved, the blame probably lies with us for not being
more vocal.  I'll admit that I personally didn't give the issue much
thought while the IAHC was still making its determinations.  But better
late than never:  this issue seems like it should be pretty important to
the library community. 

Comments?


Louis Rosenfeld                                             lou at argus-inc.com
Argus Associates, Inc.                                   http://argus-inc.com
109 Catherine Street                                   voice: +1.313.913.0010
Ann Arbor, MI  48104  USA                                fax: +1.313.213.8082

Founder, The Argus Clearinghouse:                http://www.clearinghouse.net
"Web Architect" monthly in Web Review magazine:      http://www.webreview.com