Re: Thread 5: Defining the namespace

[Daniel Kaplan <dkaplan@terra-nova.fr>]

Simon Higgs wrote:
>At 7:35 PM +0000 12/27/96, Daniel Kaplan wrote:
>> 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! ;)
I like all kinds of food...
As for "which is which", I don't expect the DNS to help me find out (a 
directory will do the job). And I believe that if we try, there will be 
so many counter-examples that we will quickly revert to gTLDs which are 
not specific to trademark categories.

>> 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.
Good. Why not?

>Are you suggesting that the rest of the world should adopt French?
Ou donc as-tu lu cela ? (Where did you read that?)

>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.
I agree and use it for IAHC discussions. I also agree that when the 
process for creation of new gTLDs will become more open (ie, after IAHC's 
"initial changes" period), most of them will be primarily meaningful in 
English - but not *all* of them, as your proposal would have it.

>[English] is the language already designated by the UN
I'm not sure the UN would agree with such a statement.

>> 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.
Defined, yes, *not* predefined.

>> 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
No, I'm supporting IAHC's approach for creating a very limited set of 
gTLDs at first, then open the process.

>> - 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.
I don't necessarily propose to be "stringent" on the registrants' type of 
activity, as this would clearly contradict the "generic" aspect of these 
gTLDs.
The rules we set forth in our position paper refer to:
- avoiding name speculation
- non-discriminatory behaviors
- administration and sharing
- and perhaps, a price- or profit-cap.

>> 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.
Titles are protected. How would Brian Gibson react to somebody else 
registering "NEUROMANCER.XYZ"?

>>   * 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.
Could WIPO representatives help us on this one?

>> 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.
I just answered Scott Bradner about this:
Maybe we chose some of our examples for "generic" poorly. Hank's were 
better: .inet, .cyber, .inter...

>> - 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).
An example (there are probably dozens), and I hope it's a good one, since 
I hadn't gotten into any details before on this proposal: .AID
- could be managed under a UN body
- registrars would have to be non-profit organizations
- registrants would have to be non-governmental, non-profit organizations
- the charter would include a low price cap, and regitrars would have to 
provide the (steward? registry?) with clear indications on how they use 
the collected funds, and which use they make of potential profit: revert 
it to registrants, donate it...


>Simon
>
>--
>If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
However, I try hard...

Daniel


---------------------------------------------------
Daniel Kaplan                 dkaplan@terra-nova.fr
Consultant     -     Media & Commerce Electroniques
               -     Electronic  Commerce  &  Media
61 rue Monge     -    75005 Paris     -      France
Tel/Fax +33 01 42 17 07 54 - GSM +33 06 09 81 03 77
---------------------------------------------------