Randomly-assigned TLDs

[Paul Ezra Kautz <pek@iu.big-island.va.us>]

Actually, random TLDs such as N3G or ABDD or whatever aren't all that
bad.  They totally solve one of the biggest problems facing DNS today:
its use as a directory.  They have the added benefit of eliminating
the whole value-of-the-TLD and bidding and who-gets-it-first issues.
You apply and you get assigned one.

But one would probably want something a bit more mnemonic.  Well, if
so, we could use the same system meteorologists use to name tropical
storms -- just arbitrary personal names.  IBM.BOB.  SPRINGER.IVANA.
INTERNIC.KRZT.  Whatever, just so long as it's meaningless.

But I realize this will never happen.  Some reasons:

1. "We need something that represents some grander purpose.
   Like COM.  Or WATER.  Or SARDINATRIX."  Well, you can go
   and look at all the second-level domains today and try to
   figure out what each represents.  We're not trying to tell
   a story here.  Not only is DNS not a directory, but it's
   also not an encyclopedia.  There are so many things DNS is
   not I hardly have room to not list them all.

2. "Isn't that just like using numeric addresses?  What's the POINT?"
   No, it isn't.  First of all, DNS provides a level of abstraction
   between the IP address and the one trying to get to it.  I can be
   934.400.3.4 one day and 15.13545.3254.453435 the next, and no one
   would notice unless I forgot to change the serial number or something.

   Second, as pithy as I'm sure many marketing agents can get in
   a few letters, there is usually more than one level to a domain.
   So there are plenty of words left to relate your domain story.

   A similar argument that I made once is that it is impractical to 
   try to remember all the addresses I need to without some meaning.
   But while this is fine for the short term in both an open and a
   restricted TLD creation system, I believe eventually that choice
   and natural redundancy would prove the inevitability of
   meaninglessness, on the second level in a restricted system and
   on the top level in an open system.  Entropy dictates that not
   everything will be easy to remember.

   (If you're really desperate, you can do the old grade-school trick
   of making sentences, like "All sandwiches need mustard" for ASNM.
   I'd really like to see that in a commercial.)

3. "What about the domain I already have?  What about the one I reserved?
   Where's my damned lawyer?"  I remember over a year ago on newdom
   or perhaps rs-talk I made a very broad and very vague proposal which
   apparently intimated that the old domains would outmode; I was soon
   informed of the millions of dollars for which I would be sued to
   compensate one fellow's company for advertizing.  I can't argue
   with this very much, except (a) it will have to change eventually,
   and (b) I don't have millions of dollars.  You can have my stamp
   collection, but you don't have to sue or anything.

   Meanwhile, Mr. Ambler and any others who have already filed their
   ponderosa claims present another problem with the -- dare I say -- 
   risky, $1000 free-for-all TLD scheme (sorry, US joke).  There are people
   claiming prior use.  They claim they sent applications.  They claim
   they sent money.  They buy things from AlterNIC.  At least if you're
   giving EVERYBODY the tough-patooties treatment, no one will complain
   about losing "her" TLD to someone else.

4. "What about sharing?  Can't we all just get along?"  I doubt it.
   For evidence, look at Mr. Allisat and Mr. Metzger.  Business is
   war, and on the net, it seems everyone is more ruthless.  The
   framework of sharing is undeniably more complex than that of
   delegation.  Delegation has been working dandily for years, while
   no one can agree whether or not sharing would take two years to
   implement.  

   But more importantly, sharing throws too much emphasis on the
   value of the name, which is what I really want to avoid.  

5. "What about the value of the name?"  This is my biggest gripe about
   both the proposed and current systems, but I put it last because
   I have a hard time defending it.  I suppose it's a basic ideology.

   The Postel system would create a body between the domain brokers
   and the recognized DNS.  But instead of selling access like a
   utility, this body would sell it like a TV sells commercials;
   this body would be no different than the domain brokers.  This
   casts serious doubts on its legitimacy.

   If you're familiar with Marx as I am not, you might draw some
   parallel to the value and use-value clash inherent in capitalism:
   waste.  At the top level, as long as we are quasi-official, we 
   should not get into the vanity business.

      Digression:

      I say quasi-official because many times people here forget the place
      of the IAHC or IANA.  I commend AlterNIC for at least pointing that
      out to many people.  But AlterNIC, much like Taiwan calling itself
      the Republic of China, will not get any power by simply claiming
      it, because legitimacy comes from recognition.  So the real power 
      lies in the hands of the elite who distribute the software (elite
      because the average user or even administrator does not bother to
      get involved in the issues enough to change her configuration).
      In other words, Paul Vixie.  

      [In his defense, the reason is not arbitrary but a long relationship
      with the network community; he has earned the trust.]

      If this strikes fear into the hearts of network capitalists, they
      do not realize that this is the most free kind of free market.
      Capitalism in its purest implementation, like socialism in its known
      existance, allots power disproportionally.  But it remains the
      best practical solution.

   Perhaps I am thinking of the root namespace (abstractly, like 
   everyone else) as a natural resource.  I can't make a direct
   analogy (blame it on the fresh new smell of the Internet), but
   you might think of me as an environmentalist pushing for moderation.

So, that's why I think randomly-assigned names would be a good system.
I used to think sharing was better, but then a similar proposal by
Mr. Vixie changed my mind.  (I'd point you to it, but I think he now
wants to keep it quiet in support of more reasonable  plans.)  I now 
see what made me dislike Postel's plan, and it remains present in the 
sharing plan: the extra value of the name.  I've tried to back this 
aversion up, but it seems a rather basic ideological difference.

Still, I like to think I'm a bit more realistic than to believe this
kind of thing would gain wide acceptance.  


Paul Kautz


Paul Ezra Kautz  Island Union  He squints, he mumbles, and he shoots people.
    pek@iu.big-island.va.us  <http://info.iu.big-island.va.us/home/pek/>
 "...bacon probably kills more people than illegal drug use." - G. Landrith