Re: gTLD-MoU Related News (August 19, 1997)

["andi payn" <payn@null.net>]

First of all, Chip, if you're just looking for a domain name right now and
don't want to deal with NSI, can't get the name you want, or don't want to
pay the money, get a domain name under an ISO country-code TLD. If you're in
the US, you can get a locality-based domain name; unfortunately, the cost,
terms, and everything else depend entirely on where in the US you live, but
it's worth looking into. Or you can get a domain name in one of countless
ISO TLDs that's cheap or even free and has few requirements. Your domain
name will work just fine from any computer on the Internet. The best place
to start looking that I can think of off the top of my head is NetNames'
site (is it www.netnames.com? I can't remember. Something like that.)

Chip wrote:
>I'm a nobody with only an interest in registering a name... someday.
>You guys are not amusing... you're scary!

Yes, there is a lot of pointless noise and flaming going on here, but
there's also meaningful discussion going on.

You have to take into account the fact that there are a number of different
groups who are trying to put into effect their own plans for expanding the
gTLD space, and to a certain extent they're looking at things more from the
point of view of protecting the time and money they've invested in a
particular plan than trying to discuss possible alternatives.

That being said, the best thing you can do for yourself is to remember which
players were most reasonable and seemed to act in good faith so if one of
these plans, or any other, does go through you'll have a good idea who you
can and can't trust.

That, and try to figure out what you think is the best solution for yourself
(and for the Internet as a whole, if you want to be altruistic) and figure
out how you can help that solution become active as soon as possible so you
can get your domain name as soon as possible.

Chip also wrote:
>I got on this newslist to get what I hoped would be relevent information
>on when
>I could register a domain name and I get this...

The truth is, nobody knows the answer to that. The reality is pretty simple,
and not too encouraging:

The eDNS coalition and a number of others have already created a set of
alternative root servers and are trying to either get the traditional root
servers to include them and/or get ISPs and OS and software vendors to point
to their alternative root servers. While there are a few court cases pending
that could make the first choice happen, at least to a limited extent, it
doesn't look like it's going to happen soon. Between AlterNIC and name.space
they've managed to convince a small portion of the Internet to look at
alternative servers, but that solution is not likely to help you out anytime
soon (although if all you're interested in is putting information up for
your friends, you could always get an SLD through one of the alternative
RSCs and tell all your friends how to access it).

The MoU organizations are hoping to get their plan active sometime next
year, but there really isn't any solid plan to effect this. If either enough
countries or just the US will sign on to their plan, they may be able to get
the traditional root servers to include their new domains, or to replace the
root servers (IANA, who started the whole process, are theoretically in
charge of telling the root servers who to accept as a NIC, but that's only
at the sufferance of the US government it's unlikely they'll push their
proposal through in that way if the US government doesn't want them to).
However, this doesn't look like it's going to happen anytime soon.

The proposals being floated by other people--including myself--are nothing
more than pipe dreams at the moment. The US government may decide to step in
and do something, but it won't be in the near future.

If all you're interested in is when you'll be able to get an SLD under a new
gTLD and have it universally accessible from the Internet, you may be better
off just watching for the occasional news articles from CNET or TechWeb and
checking the various web sites (especially the gtld-mou, AlterNIC, and eDNS
sites) every so often.

The point of all of these lists is to discuss the possibilities, not to
announce done deals.

>> >It remains that four is a surprisingly small number to have qualified so
>> >far.  Could the process be so complex, after all, that it requires so
>> >much time?
>>
>> Does it matter?  It has no visibale capacity in the world as an authority
>> on anything of purpose.
>
>I have to say... that.... yes; it probably does matter and for no other
>reason than
>others of the masses like myself will go to these people "of the list"
>in good faith expecting to
>obtain a domain name which will be used on the internet.  Viable
>capacity, not visable capacity is what counts. Gobbledegook aside.

Actually, I think you're agreeing with the anti-MoU people here.

>Unless, of course, you guys scare the crap out of us and we lose faith.

The reality is, the vast majority of people will go along with whatever
solution wins; if a few pioneers like yourself lose faith, it won't kill any
new system that actually gets implemented, although it will be a sad thing.

>On another note: Maybe we could do away with the name stuff altogether
>and just use links built by search engines.  A person could go to yahoo
>or infoseek or, or. and get a link to say 200.xxx.xxx. whatever.  Once
>stored as a bookmark

This is a possibility, but there are some problems with it.

First of all, it's possible to have a static domain name associated with a
dynamic IP address. See ML's dynamic DNS web page (dyn.ml.org? I can't
remember) for details. Bookmarks (and links and search engine pointers) to
the IP address will be useless the next day, but bookmarks (and links and
search engine pointers) to the domain name work.

It's also possible to have multiple domain names associated with the same IP
address, and it's possible, through the magic of "virtual domain names," to
have a different web site (and, through different but similar techniques,
different mail systems, theoretically) associated with each domain name even
though they share the same IP address. This is a short-term solution to the
coming IP address drought, and possibly a long-term solution to connecting
intranets to the internet. And it requires DNS.

That being said, with IPv6, it may be possible to give everyone all the
static IP addresses they want, and with improved search engines, that may
solve the problem.

But there's one more issue that technology can't solve: When you see an ad
on TV, which is easier to remember: www.clarkinfosrv.com (it's just an
example for which I happen to know the IP address; you don't have to go
there...) or 207.175.23.5? And which is easier to do: Type in the domain
name that you remember, or use a search engine to try to narrow down the
search.

><sigh> what do I know...

As much as half the people here, and more than most of the people who aren't
here...