This comment is from Milton Mueller, who was unable to log into Blogware [sorry, Milton] Susan: First, you need to question your basic assumption. Why is "semantic harm" more of a problem at the top level than at the second level? We still seem to be laboring under the dot com fallacy - the idea that whoever gets a TLD is going to automatically inherit the gold rush of 1995-1999, and that millions of registrations will ensue as soon as a name is assigned. And yet we all know that isn't true, new TLDs are at a severe disadantage relative to established ones. In a second level DNS, anyone can get virtually any string and no one really cares unless it violates well-established, legal rights such as a trademark. And those concerns are always raised after registration and use, not ex ante. That being said, here's a constructive proposal. Lee McKnight and I gave this a lot of thought when proposing a TLD process almost three years ago now. The solution is fairly simple. the first thing you need to do is set an upper limit on the number that will be added each period. This maintains the hierarchical strucure of the DNS while also ensuring that no artificial limits on supply will occur later. Then you let people propose any name they want and bid for it. If you want, you can segregate the process by commercial and noncommercial, assigning commercial ones via auction and noncommercial via lottery Wrt to "semantic" issues, the solution involves two things. First, "semantic" problems should only be raised AFTER a TLD string has been won in an auction or lottery. I.e., the selection from among competing applicants should not be based on semantics at all, but on bidding or luck, both of which are quite objective, transparent and straightforward. Second, any claims of semantic harm must be based on well-established criteria for maintaining exclusivity, NOT vague claims of "harm" based mainly on lobbying and noisemaking and well-poisening. This means, in effect, that claims of harm must be based entirely on the kind of criteria associated with trademark protection: consumer confusion, fraud and deception, passing off. Competition should explicitly NOT be recognized as a form of "harm." ICANN should also show a little modesty (for a change) and recognize that it does not have to, and in fact cannot, solve all potential social problems that might arise indirectly from the assignment of a name. Let courts and other rules systems sort out the problems they were designed to sort out. ICANN cannot and must not get into the business of deciding who is the worthiest person to get a name based on the semantics. ICANN shouldn't give a damn who gets .god, etc. It is a domain name assignment coordinator. [MM]