I agree that having persistent URLs and domain names is
usually superior to ones that might change without warning.
It's possible (and common) to have both coexisting, though.
The TLD issue is one I'm still trying to resolve in my
head. I guess if I have a point to contribute, it's that
there is no reason for a new TLD unless you are unhappy with
the allocation policy that exists in existing ones. ".museum", for example,
has a set of requirements you have to meet to register in
it. But I'm not convinced that this sort of extra hurdle
actually adds value to the name.
If we have enough such "set-asides" to keep everybody
happy (although whether that's possible is another issue),
then there are probably going to be enough so that their
mnemonic value is too small to be useful. If I'm looking
for the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, do I look at
sfmoma.com, sfmoma.org, sfmoma.museum,
moma.sanfrancisco.museum, sfmoma.art, sfmoma.pictures,
sfmoma.sculpture, sfmoma.photo, sfmoma.mus, moma.sf.ca.us,
etc.? (Although I do like what .museum does--- if you guess
wrong, it dumps you into a list you can search through.)
So, if we can't make people who want to try random URLs
(and those that want to catch their attention) happy, does
"sfmoma.museum" give more confidence in the result of a
search engine than "sfmoma-museum.org" does? Perhaps.
Anyway, I hope to have an argument which make sense in
the paper I'm writing.