Re: Thread 5: Defining the namespace

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 7:35 PM +0000 12/27/96, Daniel Kaplan wrote:

> At 10:17 AM +0200 12/26/96, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> >> 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
>
> And Simon Higgs answered:
> >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.
>
> Very important discussion here.
> I totally disagree with Simon, because (i) I don't see why the issue
> should be to 'divide the name space in a meaningful way'

Trademark law. The end result *MUST* distinguish the source of goods
and services to the consumer. Take the following example and
distinguish which name is which:

Kaplan Foods
Kaplan Cement

You have two domain names:

KAPLAN.IWAY
KAPLAN.INET

Which is which? Maybe with French food you can't tell the difference anyway! ;)

> and (ii) any
> predefined 'meaningful' way which I've read about assumes that if it's
> meaningful in English, it works for the whole world. It doesn't and
> what's more, it shouldn't.
>

If you make the name LATIN it will probably still come out in English
because one language is built on the other. Are you suggesting that the
rest of the world should adopt French? That even more selfish and
arrogant. Successful communication is about setting common standards,
and whether you like it or not, the English language is one of those
standards used widely for *CRITICAL LIFE THREATENING* communications.
This is the language already designated by the UN and other
international bodies (air traffic control, etc.). As such, it is firmly
embedded in most international communication protocols.

> Hank's trial is interesting (except, maybe, "home"...), because it refers
> to terms which have come to generically design the Internet or important
> usages of the Internet. Granted, they mostly have their origin in the
> English language, but they have reached some global legitimity.
>

They fail the litmus test and will create confusion and more lawsuits.

> Forgive me for quoting from our "position paper", but it may provide some
> food for thought on these issues:
> -- Start quoting --
> 5- MUST WE PREDEFINE WHICH iTLDs WILL BE CREATED ?
> Maybe in the short run, not in the long run.

The name space must be defined. Whether this is defined by an
organization like IAHC, or free-market forces, it must still happen.

> 5.1- In the short run:
> - We believe the expansion of iTLDs should be an experimental process,
> and undergo continuous reviews of its consequences and possible drawbacks;

Wot? Are you suggesting that the IAHC compete with AlterNIC? ;-p

> - The first new iTLDs to be created could refer to very generic
> categories, for which we feel that the Internet community has a right to
> predefine a rather stringent set of rules (a charter) to be enforced by
> registries.

How can generic TLDs have a stringent charter? Enforcement is a joke
now. Based upon NSI's fine display of administration we haven't got a
hope in hell of multiple registries enforcing a stringent set of rules.
The rules will have to be very loose to say the least.

> 5.2- In the long run:
> - We will always fail to properly map the naming universe. It can only
> properly map itself by a continuous trial and error (or
>"sort-of-free-market")
> process;
> - Prior mapping of the naming universe, eg by using WIPO trademark
> categories:
>   * neglects the fact that not only trademarks are protected (there can
> be protection for artistic works, for "famous" persons names, etc.);

Artistic works are covered under copyright. Copyright isn't an issue
here. I know of 21 people who all have the name Michael Jackson. Two
are well known entertainers. Your first line of 5.2 was correct.

>   * neglects diversity in the way names are protected in the various
> countries of the world;

WIPO is based upon the sum of the diverse ways names are protected
around the world.

>   * will probably neglect the fact that not everybody speaks English in
> the world.

This is nonsense. How do you propose to work outside the character set
that DNS uses? You can't, so your choices are limited by DNS itself.
You can use any language, and any combination of characters within the
37 allowable characters. Oh my, gosh, now it all looks like English
when, in fact, it isn't always derived from an English word.

> 6- HOW SHOULD iTLDs BE CREATED IN THE LONG RUN?
> [...]
> 6.5- Two kinds of new iTLDs may be proactively created by IANA [or IAHC],
> with stringent charters designed in order to ensure maximum efficiency
> for the Internet community:
> - "Generic" iTLDs which designate a common resource of the Internet (eg,
> .WEB,  .WWW, .MAIL, .NEWS...)

Bad choices. No .GOPHER? The same reason you didn't include that is the
reason why those choices won't work. Creating TLDs for common prefixes
in use already is an incredibly stupid, thoughtless idea. WE ARE NOT
NAMING MACHINES ON THE INTERNET AFTER INTERNET PROTOCOLS.

Having said that, my year-and-some old application for .NEWS is based
upon the legitimate need for news agencies to identify themselves as
the source of goods and services within the news industry. We don't
need the same type of identification for web servers because they are
ALL web servers. [Chris Ambler and I don't quite agree here tho' he has
modified .WEB to meet a real need that is out there]

> - Some iTLDs reserved for non-profit organizations.
> One of the provisions enclosed in the charter for those iTLDs should be a
> low price-cap for registrations, or a profit-cap for registries.

I have similar thoughts over this. Define the purpose and use for this
type of TLD (or an example of one).


Regards,

Simon

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