On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Skeeve Stevens wrote:

> Well, I think your opinion is wrong.
> 
> Companies and organisations are already confused enough about which 2ld
> to join (org vs asn, com vs net (or both)), but adding new ones.... what
> is that actually supposed to achieve?

Skeeve,

This, of course, (while being a *very good* point :) has absolutely
nothing to do with the relative ease (or difficulty) of locating
information on the Internet - which is what i was referring to in your
post (see below). 

Adding more searched resources complicates searches; adding more domains
(without increasing searched resources) does not.

Don't get me wrong; I don't really like the idea of new 2LDs; and one of
the reasons that I don't is the point you made above. That's not the same
point as below, though :) Interestingly, the above point is *exactly* the
reason that registrars like the idea of new 2LDs.

IMO there's no benefit in adding names for its their own sake.

I think that there *are* benefits to adding new 2LDs; but that those
benefits are not the benefits that are being bandied about. For example
'po.au' is a short, easy-to-remember name that would instantly open up a
whole field of new three-and-four letter domain names to entities.

> > like .web.au
> > > .shop.au .music.au .tourism.au .church.au .club.au tm.au ? 
> > They simply
> > > are not needed and only dilute the usefulness of the web for finding
> > > information.
> > 
> > Skeeve,
> > 
> > Apart from the additional (IMO, negligible) load on DNS servers; more
> > varied domain names will make absolutely no different to the relative
> > difficulty of finding resources using the appropriate search engines.

Regards,

Saliya