Re: Is stuttering the price to pay?

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 12:43 PM -0800 12/28/96, Bill Manning wrote:

> >
> > On Fri, 27 Dec 1996, Werner Staub wrote:
> >
> > > Originally, the creation of new top level domains was
> > > about making them smarter and more flexible. But now:
> > >
> > > - Why ".tm.int" when it can be ".tm"?
> >
> > tm from a global perspective will have to be run by some sort of
> > International TM authority.  Therefore it makes sense to put it under
> > .int.
> >
> 	.TM has the added property of being in the ISO 3166 list.
>

I think you missed the context. Or maybe I missed the context. Anyhow,
this is how I interpret the question:

 - Why ".<tm-category>.int" when it can be ".<tm-category>"?

Now it looks suspiciously like my draft. :)

> 	The other points wrt schema mgmt in downstream delegations
> 	is interesting and points out that diversity is a fine thing,
> 	and methods that promote diversity are good.
>
> 	It is a measure of the flexability of the way DNS is managed
> 	that allows for .US to have a different schema than .UK or .JP
> 	and to try and retro-fit one into the other seems pointless.
>

It has to be consistent across the name space, and localized at the
same time. The US trademark categories are different from the Japenese
categories. Something like the following is perfectly realistic:

<domain>.<tm-category>.ISO-3166

> 	I would hope that the IAHC would recognize this and carry forward
> 	with a plan to define a process for creating new gTLDs and not
> 	focus on micro-managment of subdelegations.
>

Like <domain>.<international-tm-category>?

Regards,

Simon

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