Entry No 107c

IT Writers Awards

Have you ever come across an organisation that so strongly believes it’s providing a vital public service that it starts to lose sight of reality? In other words, an organisation that takes a particular viewpoint -- then promptly decides that anything it does in the name of that viewpoint is righteous and just, no matter how wacky -- or just plain stupid -- its ideas become? Organisations such as these tend to come and go—eventually disappearing so far up their own collective backsides that they are never heard from again.

A recent example is The Consumer Project on Technology (CPT), Ralph Nader’s US-based pro-consumer organisation. According to a ZDNet news report by Robert Lemos, the group is going to propose seven new top-level Internet domains (TLDs), when ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) meets later this month in Cairo.

OK, so far, so good—but keep reading! The proposed domains are .union, .customers, .isnotgreen, .isnotfair, .sucks, .complaints and .ecology. The group says that these would be reserved for free-speech purposes, and that a US$10 registration fee would help cover litigation in support of free-speech issues arising from the Web sites created. Sounds like they’re expecting trouble before they even begin! 

Before I blast the CPT in my next paragraph, let me say that I think four of the proposed domains are pretty good ideas—but with the caveat that we probably don’t need more TLDs to begin with. These are .union, .customers, .complaints and .ecology. I think some great work could be done with these names.

On the flip-side, I think domains such as .isnotgreen, .isnotfair and .sucks, are incredibly, incredibly stupid—I can’t see how these “topics” aren’t already covered by the four “sensible” domain names in the previous paragraph. How could a site using .isnotgreen, for example, not already be covered by the more professional-looking .ecology? Anyone? 

And working from that .isnotgreen example, I can already imagine people registering .isnotgreen... but for what purpose? To slander a company in the name of free speech? This is ridiculous. Trust a group of Americans to come up with this free-speech crap. And can you imagine the number of .sucks sites we’re going to see if this proposal goes forward? How stupid!

Surely people who want to have their views taken seriously can see that a site ending in .sucks is not a very mature way to go about promoting their views to the world? Sure, a .sucks domain will appeal to the converted—but what about the undecided people that a Web site would be (presumably) trying to reach?

Is .sucks not a teensy bit over-the-top and inflammatory? Could it potentially turn people off a particular cause before they even read about it? I think it could, because if you’re dealing with people who take pride in a site called .sucks, you know that they’re hardly going to present a balanced view of their subject from the very start.

“This is all about using the power of top-level domains to address social issues,” said zealous James Love, director of the CPT, as quoted in the ZDNet story. “Perhaps there is a little levity in the names, but we are serious about what this could do for free speech...” 

OK, so Love admits that some suggestions are a bit “out-there”, which leads me to ask, “So why are they there at all?” Why isn’t the CPT putting forward a serious proposal—perhaps using the four good domains I mentioned earlier—and ditching the stupid domains altogether? I mean, it’s logical, isn’t it?

To conclude, if I was involved with ICANN, I’d be sorely tempted to reject the CPT proposal for the sheer stupidity of some of its suggestions. In fact, I’d probably tell them—in the name of free speech, of course—that their idea .sucks. 

Back to Most Controversial 
Back to voting form 
Top of page

Content Copyright © the author/publisher listed above

Design Copyright © Consensus Pty Ltd

This web-site uses frames, click here for the full picture