Re: Random names

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

Christopher Ambler wrote:

>The whole issue of assigning random names to avoid the perceived (or real)
>value of some names over others reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode where
>the girl didn't want to have the operation to change her looks so that everyon
>e >had the same body. State-mandated equality through forced mediocrity.

And a short story by Heinlein, "Harrison Bergeron." Yes, I can see
how equalizing iTLDs is like equalizing people.

Stephen Harris added:

>What does a random domain name get me?  What good is mpn.yzz or mpn.glu
>or mpn.hfd?  People won't remember that, and if want people to remember
>my domain name there is no benefit in registering in yzz or glu or hfd.
>However, mpn.webmasters would be a useful domain name to have....
>
>And thus there is little point in having a registery for these names.
>
>IMHO, random TLD's are a waste of effort.

I suppose if your only goal is to have memorable domains you'd feel
left out. I like to think sometimes that there's more function to
domains than publicity.

Ambler continued:

>But even if new iTLDs are random, what do you do with the .COM .NET and .ORG
>addresses currently in use? Allow them to remain, and you have an unfair
>state of affairs. Force them to be migrated, and you have a huge number of
>businesses angry because their name is being taken away.

And Carl Oppedahl joins:

>What's nuts is suggesting that people who have already
>invested time and money in their domain names (and who aren't infringing any
>trademarks) should have to give up their domain names.

Indeed, some people are very attached to their domains. As I have
mentioned, I was once threatened with a lawsuit on the first newdom
for millions of poor, lost advertizing dollars I would put out of a
home with my dangerous intimations.

I haven't addressed this issue because it isn't worth it. As you may
have missed me writing, I don't believe this will happen (nor do I
want this to happen) for many reasons - the one you raise among them.


Rick Cricow, in lone support, wrote:

>i went to register my business with interNIC and found my company name
>taken, legitimately, by someone else with the same name, in a completely
>different line of business, all proper and legal under u.s. trademark law.
>we both have unregistered trademarks, nice and legal.  so by right of first
>use, i lose the right to use the 'easy' name for my company.
...
>using random letters (or numbers) won't help complete stupidity with the
>public, but will aid those businesses trying to survive without the best
>possible domain name.  no one complains because my 800 number doesn't spell
>anything.  yet they expect the web to be easy.  this loses me business, and
>all because someone else beat me to the 'easy' domain.

So you want multiple open iTLDs on equal terms. Why must they be
random?

That the public is, as you say, stupid as a whole is undeniable.
But as Kent Crispin points out:

>> Then again, perhaps this is a trait of all systems of choice.
>
>I think this is going to be true with random names as well, though.  
>Even among random names, some will be nicer than others. 
>
>I guess I think that the fact that some names will appear nicer is in 
>practice unavoidable.

If you can't stop this "stupidity with the public," why try?

My conclusion:

As long as there are several open iTLDs on equal footing, eventually
there will be no "easy" name, and the problem of using DNS as
a phone book will be solved (eventually).


>> That's why (enforced) randomly-assigned TLDs will never happen:
>> we're crazy about our names!
>
>Perhaps we agree :-)

Yes. I think you've convinced be that the "cool" factor can't be
avoided. 

The question remains though: can it be measured? Perhaps, in an
open iTLD, the cool factor would be directly proportional to the
popularity and the price - C = cQP, where Q is the annual number
of customers, P is the price (in a yearly fee system), and c is
the coolness constant (in Miles Davises per customer dollar). 
So the IANA could charge an annual "cool fee" based on this to 
counteract the forces of land-rush domain marketing.

Yes, I'm joking. (...although the percent-of-income fee is exactly
analogous.)

Paul Kautz