Re: [ifwp] Re: gTLDs (was Cumulative list ICANN Interim Board nominees)

["Martin B. Schwimmer" <martys@interport.net>]

At 06:46 PM 9/27/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Ellen below takes what should be now be the completely discredited view that
>TLDs can function as an index or directory. I am surprised to see this view
>seriously put forward as an alternative at this time. The concept of
>DNS-as-directory was viable in 1985, when there were a few thousand hosts
and a
>closed system. It is no longer viable simply on grounds of scalability. At
>best, a TLD system that tried to function as a directory would look someting
>like the yellow pages categorizations, with thousands of essentially
arbitrary,
>often overlapping classifications that would not be much less confusing
than a
>totally open, uncatalogued system.

The previous poster did not take a completely discredited view.

Arguing that a commercial domain name contain at least one and preferably
two forms of category infomration is not equivalent to arguing that the TLD
function as a directory.  Arguing that the baseball teams include their
city in their names is not arguing that the league standings function as a
map. 

Also, what is and what should be are two different things.  People should
use better directories than guessing who owns a domain name, but they don't
(at least enough  guess to cause problems).  Despite the fact that there
are many owners of the DELTA mark in the US (alone), the owners of
delta.com (DeltaComm, an ISP out of Georgia), was reported in the NY Times
this week (9/21, C section) as being overwhelmed by 50,000 erroneous hits a
week by people looking for Delta Airlines.  (Those of you who recall the
Delta Faucet exchange of two weeks ago will, I don't know, react in some
suitably anguished fashion).

I don't disagree that education and better directories would go along way
in resolving TM/DN disputes, but part of the DNSO's job is helping out the
situation which exists today, where people use, dare I say, a company's
trading name in guessing what the DN is.


>>The concept of deep hierarchies within ccTLDs has been decisively
rejected by
>users. Yes, Ellen, it was *users* not registries who, whenever they were
given
>a choice between nestling somewhere deep within the clear but complex
>categories of .us or a SLD in .com, almost invariably chose the latter.


.law.au is not a deep hierararchy.  I am not sure how many of the approx. 3
million (is it that much already?) .com registrants even knew there was .us
domain available to them.  People prefer easy-to-remember to hard to
remember, and simple is easier to remember than complex, but the choice of
.com over .us is not proof of that fact.  Also, the choice of .com over a
registrant's local ccTLD is not proof of that either, given the perceived
"global cachet" of the .com domain.





>
>But even that argument is not the killer. The killer is simply that there are
>already millions of gTLD registrations that will not and cannot go away. Try
>even *suggesting* that 3 million .com registrants suddenly pack up and
move to
>a ccTLD, and see what happens. 

I don't believe Ms. Rony suggested that anyone move.  Who did?


There are also a growing number of registrations
>within ccTLDs that "act like" commercial gTLDs. The market is pressing very
>clearly toward opening up the name space.

Well marketers are certainly pressing. You make any interesting point about
pseudo TLDs.  .tm is shut down because of problems with the Turkemenistan
government but not before there were allegations of massive fraud among
registrants (I cannot substantiate this claim because it is based on
hearsay).  As for .tv, that is precisely not an undifferentiated TLD, and
assuming it was run on the up and up, would allow Fox the TV network to
co-exist with Fox software,  It is my understanding that of the pseudo
gTLDs, only one, .as is doing any real business, and it also is a
non-generic TLD, being targeted at Scandanavian businesses (.as is a
corporate ending in two Sanadanavian countries). 

So maybe people like a bit of taxonomy and a little simplicity in their DNs.

 >It is only the arbitrary monopoly
>power of NSI/NSF and IANA that prevents it.
>

Your argument that people choose .com because of its elegance seems to
contradict your allegation that NSI and IANA have monopoly power.  Is .com
a natural monopoly, Windows without the bugs?




>--MM
>
>Ellen Rony wrote:
>
>> Bob Allisat wrote:
>>
>> Attempting to coral us into
>> > an extremely restricted pool of options
>> > is just not the Internet way to do things.
>>
>> If we scrap the geographic specificity of .US and apply a taxonomy similar
>> to that used by Australia and many other ccNICs, the pool of options is
>> expanded, jurisdictional issues are simplified, and the DNS hierarchy is
>> retained.
>>
>> Opening up new gTLDs means wrangling over the following issues:
>> * proprietary or not?
>> * registry requirements
>> * which words to use?
>> * how many gTLDs to create?
>> * when to be released into the global pool?
>> * how to maintain integrity of the category?
>> * how to avoid bloating each category with trademark owners concerned about
>> policing their marks?
>>
>> These issues are not insignificant and can tie us up in debate for ANOTHER
>> two years.
>>
>> I have a 12-year old son with a long first name, 9 letters.  Everyone tries
>> to shorten it to 4, out of laziness I presume.  Adults are the greatest
>> offenders.  Anyone who has struggled with the subtle difference between
>> Henry and Hank, William and Bill, Elizabeth and Liz, Ellen and El or
>> Alexander and Alex will understand my complaint.
>>
>> To some extent, I feel the push for gTLDs is of the same nature.
>> Registrants want the shortest identifier possible.  Users,  however, need
>> the most efficient system that finds them the site they want. Right now,
>> the DNS is bloated with inactive sites registered to speculators, hoarders,
>> and paranoids, who are collecting pre-emptive registrations.
>>
>> If form follows function, I think we need to establish a clarifying
>> taxonomy under individual ccTLDs, to give people more information about a
>> site.  Would .law.au be different than .law.us.  You bet.  Or .med.fr and
>> .med.jp.  Absolutely.  Would this be a meaningful distinction?  As an
>> Internet user, I believe so.  Would it prevent "corralling" into a
>> restricted pool of options?  Quite the opposite. It would broaden the
>> options and hierarchy.  More important, it would simplify the task of
>> finding specific information on the web, which I believe is the ultimate
>> goal of this process.
>>
>>       "If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog."  Harry S Truman
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Ellen Rony                                          //
>> Co-author: The Domain Name Handbook              *="  ____ /
>> http://www.domainhandbook.com                       \     )
>> erony@marin.k12.ca.us                                ||  ||
>> +1 (415) 435-5010
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> To view the archive of this list, go to:
>> http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp
>>
>> To receive the digest version instead, send a
>> blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
>>
>> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
>> subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>>
>> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
>> unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
>>
>> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
>> ___END____________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>To view the archive of this list, go to:
>http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp
>
>To receive the digest version instead, send a
>blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
>
>To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
>subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
>unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
>
>Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
>___END____________________________________________
>
>
>