Re: TLD Inter-Fact

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 1:31 PM -0800 11/28/96, Michael Dillon wrote:

> .POP  - population groups distinct in language and or culture
>         This includes broad groups like La Francophonie and the
>         Commonwealth nations (commonwealth.pop, francophonie.pop)
>         as well as narrow groups like the Okanagan aboriginal
>         nation in Canada okanagan.pop or the Ga of Ghana ga.pop
>

What's wrong with okanagan.ca? What you are doing is, by definition,
under the ISO codes.

> .CAT  - organized groups which want a TLD for a specific category
>         This is for existing organizations which are capable of managing
>         a policy such as the international organization of museums.
>         The .CAT registry would run the .MUS.CAT from the operational
>         and technical viewpoint but the museum organization would
>         run the policies and actually create the subdomains.
>         rom.mus.cat (Royal Ontario Museum), louvre.mus.cat
>

What's the difference between rom.mus.cat and rom.icom.org (Royal
Ontario Museum), or louvre.mus.cat and louvre.icom.org. They're both
3LD. To solve this problem overall, you must make the 2LD the
delegation. louvre.icom or louvre.mus are infinitely preferable.

> .MARCA - this would be delegated to a group which would operate with
>          a policy that delegates domains based on existing registered
>          trademarks. The .MARCA TLD would be subdivided and/or
>          managed so that it can be used as a directory of international
>          trademarks.
>

We specifically do NOT want trademarks handled by a monopoly registry.
Sharing this amongst government trademark database bodies is one
solution (I'll let you work the logistics out ;), or it has to be
shared or distributed, where there will be little control over direct
mapping.



Simon

--
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.