Re: Why Domain Names are NOT like 800 numbers

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Ellen,

Ellen Rony wrote:
> 
> Jim Fleming wrote, in part:
> 
> >People who start with the premise that only a limited
> >number of Top Level Domains should be "allowed"
> >tend to be people that want to control the Internet,
> >who are in line to gain financially from that control,
> >and who want to preserve the past at all cost because
> >they fear the future will not have a place for them.
> 
> Well, I am one person who fits into none of the above categories, and I am
> certain that there are many others who don't want to see a profusion of
> TLDs but have nothing to gain, financially or administratively, from
> holding that position.

  I don't fall into any of Vinces catagories either.  I also don't
believe that any one or more parties can arbitrarly set a limit
on the number of TLD's that should be avalible.  I do however
believe that there is an outside limit.  What EXACTLY that limit
is I am not sure.  
> 
> The extensive list you posted of current TLDs supported by registries
> globally really says volumes about the problems inherent in sweeping
> expansion of the TLDs that you support.

  Yes it does.  And not necessarly negitively if you read my response
to Jims posting.
> 
> 1) Corporate concerns
> Companies that have huge investments in their trademarks and brands do not
> want to lose control over their names.  Whether or not it is appropriate to
> attempt to graft trademark law onto the DNS system (I believe not), the
> reality is that the expansion "officially recognized" TLDs will set these
> companies scrambling to assure that they lay claim to their name in every
> appropriate category. For example, we may be familiar with the Hearst
> Corp's Esquire Magazine, but it also has registered trademarks for
> cigarette lighters, clothing, cologne and shaving cream, sunglasses,
> watches and entertainment video cassettes.  Would Hearst feel obligated to
> register the name under a dozen different categories? 

  Not necessarly.  Hurst doesn't need to regiater all over the place
at diffrent registries in the 'ROund Table" approach to which Jim
speeks of is a cooperative agreement (As I pointed out in my earlier
response to Jims post). 

> How does this serve
> the efficient use of the Internet to have such built-in redundancy?

  Under s shared regrestry system that would be insured if the
guidelines
or procedures and selection and challange pannels are desinged
correctly,
and each RSC has inter-cooperative agreements that are members of the
"Round Table"  (See Jims previous post on how this might be done).

  There are alos several other possibilities as well that would fairly
easly solve these porblems and nearly eliminate whearhousing and 
trademark disputes.  I have outlined parts of some possibilities
just yesterday to this and the gtld-mou list.  Please review.

> I think
> this begs for international problems of nightmare proportions.  If you have
> any doubts, just take a look at the dispute over PRINCE.COM (see
> http://www.prince.com/prince/press1 .htm. and other related documents on
> site).

  Under the current system is where PRICE.COM is having it's problems,
not under the perposal's that Jim F. and others have perposed to the
commerce commision recently.  The possible exception would be the
gTLD-MoU and IANA/ISOC/iPOC's perposal to which the commerce department
requested comments and suggestions or perposals due this past Monday.
> 
> 2)  Consumer concerns
> While the DNS was never intended to be used as a directory, the reality is
> that most Internet users apply the names that way.  The sweeping expansion
> of TLDs you advocate will make it impossible for anyone to guess what a
> likely domain might be for each individual lookup.  Already, with a glut of
> too similar names on the market, guessing is losing its effectiveness, but
> it still works often enough to be a time-saver.

  Guessing works often enough?  Excuse me!  With over 140m domains you
can guess that well.  You are truely amazing!  >;)
> 
> There do need to be better identifiers, because clearly a large percentage
> of the .COM registrations don't accurately fit that description. (For
> example, my technology-oriented family has registered RONY.COM, although
> there is no expectation of selling goods or services on the site, but it
> will be a great communication medium among the 11 of us, residing in six
> different states.)  To meet the need for better identifiers, as I have said
> before, I believe .COM should be shifted down one level and perhaps a dozen
> new SLDs added.

  
> 
> In my contribution to the NOI, filed (of course) on the last day, I
> suggested the addition of only ONE new iTLD, which I call .NDX.  My thought
> would be that every domain registration anywhere on the planet could have a
> record added under .NDX.  If someone wanted to find ESQUIRE, the magazine,
> or ESQUIRE, the watchmaker, (and these were registered separately) then one
> would type in ESQUIRE.NDX, and all the Esquires of the world would
> magically appear.  I also suggested adding another field to the
> registration record for the international class number that describes any
> trademark names. This might also appear under.NDX, thus obviating the
> confusion and the opportutnity for trademark infringement claims.  The
> magic could continue to the next step where the Internt user could click on
> the desired name found under *.NDX and go directly to that organization's
> web site.
> 
> Face it, people are accustomed to a hierarchy.  A pyramid structure is
> appropriate when there is a huge mass of information that is available for
> access.  The very successful YAHOO works because it breaks this Internet
> mass of content into manageable categories. The iTLD/countryTLD-SLT-3TLD
> hierarchy serves that need. A seeming unlimited expansion of iTLDs does
> not.

  Why not?  There would still be some of the same catagories and some 
new ones as well.  All that would be done is making those catagories
more finite in many cases and the DNS database would not be nearly
as flat as it currently is, so lookups would be much faster in that 
alot more levels would than start to take shape, again speeding up
user access.

> 
> Frankly, I am baffled by what impetus is driving this approach.  I assume
> that other RFCs would like to share the valuable franchise that is
> currently under the monopoly control of NSI.  Okay, so the simple remedy to
> that is to open the registration and administration of domain names to
> additional registrars.

  This could be one approach that CAN work.  But the current gTLD-MoU
plan is to restrictive in several areas, as you well know by now
form comments on this list.  
> 
> I assume that another impetus is that people want the names that they want
> and feel entitled to have them no matter what residual problems such a
> demand may create.  I don't feel that we are guaranteed an inalienable
> right to any domain name we want.

  Maybe not.  But the demands of the market place should drive the
answer
to that question, not a small group of people.  
> 
> And all this clamour reminds me of the difference between playing scrabble
> competitively against several opponents, and putting all your letters out
> on the table to see if, cooperatively, you can get the highest score.  That
> makes it a much more interesting game. I don't expect any registrants to
> roll over and willingly give up a desirable name to another company that
> wants it.  But I think it is time for the DNS to begin looking at other
> models such as that used by DISC.COM.  Go look at the "Intermediate Home
> Page" of the two legitimate DISC-named companies and see if you don't
> agree.

  Ok, fair enough!  I will do that.  I hope others do as well.  If for
no other reason to at least get a perspective.
> 
> Ellen Rony
> Director, Alexander Works
> 21 Juno Road * Tiburon, CA * 94920
> 
> Phone:  415/435-5010
> Fax:    415/435-5010
> Email:  erony@marin.k12.ca.us
> 

Regards,
-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. 
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com