The article begins, "Decisions made this week in the meeting rooms of a San Francisco hotel could dramatically change how the world experiences the internet." The writer advances the idea that more top-level domain names means more openings for cybercrime. Not a pretty story, but a topic to follow in the news. Thanks to Jim Hamm for alerting us to this issue.
Not one to procrastinate, we've already heard from John Carter this morning who offers a blow-by-blow rebuttal. His comments have already been posted on globalpublicsquare, (same link as above). After opening that site do Command + F and enter "John" in the Search box to quickly find John Carter's comments.
Here's John's assessment:
"A quote from the article: Right now, there are 21 top-level domains. If ICANN’s new policy is implemented, we will see top-level domains such as .car, .newyorkcity, .hotels and hundreds more. Internet real estate will grow exponentially, creating a more complex experience for every user.
"That part about this being a more complex experience for every user is really unnecessary. It sounds like negative press, and for what purpose? I don’t get it. This would be like saying, “If 5,000 new words were added to the English dictionary, people will have a more difficult time trying to communicate.”
"The addition of the new top-level domains actually simplifies a user’s experience because it aids in identifying the nature of the connection. Just because we are all familiar with and got used to .com and .org doesn’t mean we can’t change and expand our horizons. I think a Republican wrote that article.
"The author goes on to give a more negative meaning to the decision by inferring that only certain people stand to gain financially from the decision (emphasis mine): Those in the business of making money by selling domain names agree, and, unfortunately, they have inserted themselves into ICANN’s policy-making process. For example, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) in ICANN's multistakeholder operational model is responsible for introducing and developing the top-level domain policy at hand. The GNSO, however, is largely composed of the same registries and registrars that stand to gain financially by the proposed massive introduction of new top-level domains.
"So what? Is the author complaining that the financial gain isn’t being spread around to everyone? Now I think the author is a Democrat!
"Oops! Wait a minute! Here’s more doom and gloom: This new policy will have great social, economic and security costs. If these new top-level domains are introduced, opportunities for cybercrime and fraud would be increased substantially.
"His question: How would you determine which are fraudulent sites actively misinforming the public?
"The answer simply is: call the supposed owner of the site and get confirmation. What’s so difficult about that? People get scammed every day simply because they don’t bother to verify the source of the so-called official email or URL. The courts have a saying for this: Caveat emptor.
"The author goes on. A massive introduction of top-level domains will overwhelm the existing framework for combating cybercrime, putting millions of internet users at unnecessary risk.
"No more than what is already happening. Just because the 400 new top-level domains introduces more opportunities for scamming doesn’t mean that scamming will increase anymore than it is already. It doesn’t even mean that it will add to the workload of authorities trying to pin down and stop scammers. It only means what you and I and the author want it to mean. If the public gets swayed by this article to join some movement to stop this decision, it would be like asking Webster to stop adding new words to the dictionary.
"More: In addition, consumers will be forced to take extensive measures to protect themselves from fraud and other malicious activities on the internet.
"Extensive measures? What? Name them! Yes, I can make up a lot of scenarios wherein the Internet Public has to protect themselves from nefarious activities. That list won’t increase one iota by adding 400 new top-level domains. The number of directions from where one can get scammed doesn’t change how one avoids being scammed. Where is there any sanity in this author’s comments? Doom and Gloom seems to be his favorite perspective. Who taught this guy to see things objectively? That lesson obviously failed.
"The final blow: ICANN’s original mission – as a domain name regulator with a policy-making process inclusive of all internet users – was well-intentioned, but it has been polluted by constituents primarily concerned with financial gain, leaving the rest of us bearing the cost.
"What cost? Where’s the facts behind this statement? Is it the potential cost of being scammed? I can’t see that there is any out-of-pocket cost to the Internet Public for adding new top-level domains!
"The variety of comments on this article seems to indicate that there are about as many people who agree with the author as disagree with him. Some people are clearly confused by saying they don’t like the idea of a small group of people making decisions like this. To get a Democratic version of this decision would require a majority of the world’s population to know as much about the Internet as that small group of people - good luck on that one!"
And so concludes John's comments. Anyone else want to jump in?