Richard Archer  wrote:

> At 9:08 +1100 24/11/00, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> >Let's agree that there should be a whole load of new 2LDs.  Why not?
>
> Do you mean "Why not" hypothesise on that basis? Or "Why not" create
> a whole load of new 2LDs?

I meant the latter but either would do for the sake of the argument.

> The IMHO overwhelming argument against creating a whole raft of new
> 2ld's is that they are confusing to users. The existing .com.au and
> .net.au division is bad enough... imagine if users had to contend
> with .biz.au, .firm.au, .cpa.au, .vet.au and so on. I don't think
> they'd cope!

I agree they would be a littlr confusing but I think the advantages outweigh
the disadvantages.  Purely a personal viewpoint.  But it's like the question
"How many hairs in a beard?"  Is one hair a beard?  Two?  Ten?  Hundred?

I think there would have to be a awful lot of 2LDs before the general public
got seriously confused.  Especially when they get promoted on TV.  Let's have
a look at the Australian Society of CPAs.  How many members are there?  Last I
heard there was at least 60,000 or so.

If I were a CPA, I would have a card with the CPA logo.  I could then have an
email address something like patrick §corliss.cpa.au or even pcorliss§cpa.au

All the CPAs would do the same making it easy to remember for most of their
clients.  In fact, it's naturally easier than pcorliss§cpa.com.au
Accountants would love it and their clients would too.

As far as not coping, it's happening anyway in the gTLD space.  So even
without new 2TLDs in Australia, they're going to see a lot of that stuff.


> > Isn't even slightly possible that this money could be used in some way to
> > help finance a better internet?
>
> I don't believe so. The two scenarios I envisage are:
>
> 1. The money goes to line the pockets of Melbourne IT's shareholders
>
> 2. The money goes into the government's general revenue and funds a
> 1c per litre cut in fuel excise for Australia's primary industry
> further reinforcing Australia's third world economy.

You cynical person :).  I was think of at least part going to fund auDA.
But from a public interest viewpoint, (2) might be better than (1).

Best regards
Patrick Corliss