Re: Thread 5: Defining the namespace

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 10:17 AM +0200 12/26/96, Hank Nussbacher wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Dec 1996, Simon Higgs wrote:
> > Let's do this in the right order and fix the underlying problem... :-)
> >
> > 1. Define the namespace. The new TLDs need to be proposed (this can be by
> >  anyone including prospective registries or organizations simply requesting
> >  suitable names). Many proposals already exist in the form of applications
> >  received by IANA. [The IAHC, in NOT defining their proposed 7 gTLDs, have
> >  made the mistake of putting the cart before the horse]
> >  viability of registration services.
>
> Ok, I'll bite.  From the draft:
> These new gTLD's will consist of letter strings of three to five letters
> each. IAHC has also decided that each gTLD should have general, contextual
> meaning, i.e. thegTLD should suggest a connection with the Internet, with
> business or with personal uses.
>

Context = Use + Purpose

> The initial seven gTLD's will be specified by IAHC. Comments from the
> Internet communityand other stakeholders in response to this specific
>proposal
> will be considered.
>
> Ideas: .iway, .inet, .cyber, .home, .ppl, .inter
>

Mmmmm... The equation is broken. The only one that stands out as valid
is .HOME. The problem with the other examples is that they fail to
divide the name space in a meaningful way. .COM, .EDU, and ISO-3166
domains are distinct divisions. The above examples are all nearly
identical. Maybe you could help by defining the types of registrations
that would go under each one as they appear to have zero value other
than to confuse the consumer and cause more trademark infringements.

> I would like to see more suggestions for names than the ones I have
> randomly selected.  Someone has recommended that a charter be defined for
> each gTLD so please add in a quasi charter of some sort for each name
> mentioned.
>

Jon Postel has released a list of 168 applications (148 unique names)
that have a better feel for use & purpose than the above seven. I've
suggested the 42 trademark categories plus others as needed. We're not
short on suggestions. We are short on answers why the IAHC only want to
create 7 new TLDs.

> Those that feel NSI has been given preferred treatment (and that they will
> not share com/net/org) now have a chance to define some super gTLD that
> NSI won't be able to use unless it agrees to share what it has.  For
> example, the entire area of home and personal use does not have a valid
> gTLD today.
>

There are plenty of willing registries that will closely hold a TLD or
two until NSI shares .COM et al. ;-)

Regards,

Simon

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