Re: how to solve TM collision

[Laurent BERNARD <lbernard@artinternet.fr>]

(detail below that :)
FCFS proved its inequity in giving everybody (lets assume we are only
talking of
honest people) the right to a short, easy-to-remember domain.

I prefer equity in giving these people either longer names AND a better chance
to be found (on web AND mail, ftp, ...) than inequity in giving by FCFS a
short
DN to the fastest and impossible-to-spell DN to the others, with even more
difficulty
to find them, and the obligation to use, say, AltaVista, with 100 000
answers, "guess
in which page the good one is, see ya next year".

The question is here not to implement 1 directory, but as many switch pages
as there appear multiple customers asking for a SLD, on a noun base, not a 
geographical or whatever complicated base

Avoiding this way either courts (money-uneven chances again !!), and inequity.

The last message of Vince Wolodkin is quite accurate too on the matter of
naming inequity. (and easy to read, I apologize for my poor english).

At 10:12 11/12/96 -0500, you wrote:
>At 11:52 AM 12/11/96 +0100, Laurent BERNARD wrote:
>>The problem on this matter is : the TM space accepts duplications of names,
>>not the DN space (you may even see TM names "hired" by plural companies,
>>paying for the right to use a name in their business, look at car names :
>>retailers pay to use Ford, or others, in their adverts ...)
>>This problem gets more complicated as the DN space is used internationnaly.
>>
>>I think it would be possible, and even easy, when more than one company
claims
>>for the same domain name, to implement a generic page saying :
>>"you've reached IBM switch page.
>>Here is the Institute of Bonn for Management :
>>http://ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de/
>>Here is the International Business Machine home page : http://www.ibm.com/
>>...... "
>>(so what, I could choose microsoft :-)
>
>You are not alone to wonder if this sort of thing would help.  A
>self-creating and self-updating interactive directory embedded within the
>process of a DNS lookup.  Others have suggested things along this line also.

no no.
I was not clear.
There was no question of automation nor directory here (well, no complete
automation).
When a collision is about to occur, the modifications are manually triggered
(after if necessary some time to warn the contacts), and it is not a directory
which is built, but only a generic page for xyz.com, with if needed a customer
control on its appearance.

>Unfortunately for this idea, it doesn't work.  For one thing, it assumes
>that the Web is all there is to the Internet.  But DNS lookups happen lots
>of other ways than people typing a URL into their web browser (where they
>could watch the screen and respond to a query "which IBM do you want?").
>Every time somebody sends email to foo@ibm.com, this odd lookup would have
>to occur.  Every time somebody tries to obtain a file via FTP.  Every time a
>mailing list such as this one tries to broadcast a message to the members in
>the list.

I do not think this is a problem.
As all types of servers will then be moved, it is easy to implement a
"return error"
message indicating that the server (mail, ftp,...).xyz.com as been moved,
"please see
http://www.xyz.com to check the new location.", from any server pointed by
xyz.com.
Besides, if I want to write to :
	Mr Doe
	69 Carnaby street
	Amsterdam
and want it to go to Amsterdam in the Netherlands, I have to INCLUDE
the country on my enveloppe, at risk if I don't either to see my letter
returned
or sent to another country, to the wrong guy.
Why should it be more difficult to reach by E-mail somebody with a long
address
than reaching him by snail-mail with an even longer address ?
If we are to address the whole world soon (well...), with 20 letters max
addresses
because it's too difficult to remember more, then we are in trouble (are we
?).
And if I want furthermore this address to be mnemonic, we have the current
situation :
there is the lucky ones (FCFS), and the others.
Let's give everybody the same chance to be evenly lucky (or unlucky :-).

>Another reason it doesn't work has to do with temporal consistency.  If I
>have a URL that goes to the FTP site of the IBM that we've all heard of, and
>I load it into my web site as a link, then clicking on that link retrieves
>some file from IBM.  Thousands, perhaps millions of other people do the same
>in their web sites.  Now some Institute of Bonn for Management comes along,
>says "I wanted IBM.COM too", and now (as I understand the proposed idea) the
>thing that happens instead is that some sort of menu pops up.  I am invited,
>instead, to select which of the IBM wannabees I would like to go to.
>Thousands, perhaps millions of links are now broken.  They don't work any
more.

So ?
We (an ISP), offer links to "interesting sites" on our web.
Sometimes (often in fact), these sites are moved, withdrawn, or whatever,
and the link
is empty.
Hard work to keep everything up-to-date right NOW.
Such is life that sometimes, for the benefit of the wider public, and of
the companies
wishing with good reason to be found easily, things have to be changed
(once and for all,
note it).
And for the second IBM, why should ITS site to be
ftp.ibm.edu.private.school.com
while it may sue IBM (just an example :-) to get .ibm.com ?
Everybody at the same level because the world is real and can't be all
computer-modelised
is it such an heresy ?

>No, a domain name, once assigned, needs to stay rather static and
>predictable in its behavior (it needs to return some IP address selected by
>its owner) changeable except in the special (and presumably rather rare
>case) that trademark infringement is occurring.  

DN id NOT predictable anymore NOW, as I said (for the end user).
IP addresses are still in my idea returned correctly.
TM infrigment occurs precisely because of DNS limits
Happens that my own bookmarks get outdated.

>And the decision to change the behavior should be made *only* after some
>fair and reasonable process that actually evaluates whether infringement is
>occurring.  (At present, NSI cuts off a domain name without bothering to
>check to see if any infringement is actually occurring, simply because some
>trademark owner asks them to do it.)

I can not agree more with this.
Only it shouldn't be the task of a registry to check it (think of what would
become the fees if it has to check worldwide for possible infringment).
The customer should PROVE it has right to claim for a DN.
Or lie.
Then the first "owner" of the DN, if let a little time will soon raise
objections, 
that may be verified at once, for cheap.
If not, there is courts, but how less than now !!!!!!!!

Thank you for your comments, I appreciate your skills and clearness.
I'm not grabbed on my idea, it is just IMHO an elegant solution.
But if I understand the difficulty to have consensus on this and the different
opinions on a solution, I just couldn't think of better.
I'm still unconvinced it wouldn't work, sorry, I would like to.

Respectfully.


Laurent BERNARD
"Not knowing it couldn't be done, he went ahead and did it"