what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora'sBox

Discussion:

(too old to reply)

Joe Greco

2008-06-30 17:38:51 UTC

For example, I *ought* to be able to find the Police Department for the City
of Milwaukee at something reasonable, such as "police.ci.milwaukee.wi.us".
If I then needed the police for Wauwatosa, "police.ci.wauwatosa.wi.us", or
for Waukesha, "police.ci.waukesha.wi.us".
To extend that principle, companies that have an exclusively local presence
probably don't need to be occupying space in a TLD. That's the Marty's
Pizza example.

martyspizza.brookfield.wi.us works great. At what point in Marty's
expansion does Marty's Pizza get to move to a TLD? The RFC leaves
management decisions to an alluded to but unnamed group.

That doesn't need to be a "management decision" by some third party group.
That *could* be something we would have guided people through, in the same
way that 1480 provides other guidance.

I see usefulness in having scopes that are local (city/village/etc),
state, country, and global. There's no reason that you couldn't start
out local, and as you grew, get a state level domain (martyspizza.wi.us),
and if you went national (martyspizza.us), etc. In many (most!) cases,
businesses do not make significant growth in a rapid fashion.

Plus, WTF: John-Muir.Middle.Santa-Monica.K12.CA.US
Cut and Paste or die trying. I doubt parents will remember or type that.

Actually, that has to do with what I was talking about in continuing to
develop a reasonable system. Quite frankly, if I was in that school
district, I see no reason why my computer couldn't be aware of that
domain, and actually have "http://john-muir" or some similar mechanism
actually work. The ideal is probably more complex in implementation,
but does not need to be more complex in use.

Besides, sophisticated search engines are making Domain Names less
relevant anyway. I can find Marty's Pizza in Brookfield via Google or
Yahoo in a matter of seconds. Let the search engines organize the web,
not DNS.
Schools are going short and sweet, just like businesses, using the
existing TLDs. martyspizza.net is fine. So is johnmuirsl.org. No need
for 30 more or 3000 more TLDs.

I would agree that we don't need more TLD's. But the namespace, as it
exists, is messy, and it's nasty to expect that people will always have
to use a browser and a search engine to find their destination's domain
name.

... JG

--
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.

Peter Beckman

2008-06-30 19:16:15 UTC

Permalink

Post by Joe Greco
I see usefulness in having scopes that are local (city/village/etc),
state, country, and global. There's no reason that you couldn't start
out local, and as you grew, get a state level domain (martyspizza.wi.us),
and if you went national (martyspizza.us), etc. In many (most!) cases,
businesses do not make significant growth in a rapid fashion.

The selfish will abuse the lack of RFC1480 management and go straight to
martyspizza.us, even though they have one store, because it's available at
the time.

Post by Joe Greco
Actually, that has to do with what I was talking about in continuing to
develop a reasonable system. Quite frankly, if I was in that school
district, I see no reason why my computer couldn't be aware of that
domain, and actually have "http://john-muir" or some similar mechanism
actually work. The ideal is probably more complex in implementation,
but does not need to be more complex in use.

Does the DNS provider or ISP decide that? Or are you just referring to a
bookmarking feature in your browser? Which then makes moot any RFC1480
friendly URL. Namespaces in DNS that are globally recognized are
different than your example above.

Post by Joe Greco
I would agree that we don't need more TLD's. But the namespace, as it
exists, is messy, and it's nasty to expect that people will always have
to use a browser and a search engine to find their destination's domain
name.

Nobody can or will cleanup the existing namespaces. New TLDs will
continue to make them more messy. More court battles over new TLDs will
come up. The wealthy will get their own TLDs (I can't afford .beckman,
but I'm sure Beckman Instruments can, who already own beckman.com, and
I'll just be screwed again), and small guys will not.

Search engines and browser tools will render the value of domain names
to approaching zero, .com will remain the namespace of choice, and that
new TLDs will be for the wealthy i.e. http://google/ and http://coke/ and
there will be more court battles for those trademarks.

Beckman
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Beckman Internet Guy
***@angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric Brunner-Williams

2008-06-30 19:36:27 UTC

Permalink

Post by Peter Beckman

Post by Joe Greco
I see usefulness in having scopes that are local (city/village/etc),
state, country, and global. There's no reason that you couldn't start
out local, and as you grew, get a state level domain
(martyspizza.wi.us),
and if you went national (martyspizza.us), etc. In many (most!) cases,
businesses do not make significant growth in a rapid fashion.

The selfish will abuse the lack of RFC1480 management and go straight to
martyspizza.us, even though they have one store, because it's
available at
the time.
...

For which, if you are so inclined, you may credit, or damn, NeuStar. The
original bid to the US DoC did not envision the "dotless" or "flat"
model displacing the "dotfull" or "hierarchical" model. The US DoC has
not yet seen fit to solicit tenders from operators intending to offer a
policy model other than that of the current operator. For those of you
in the US, who think its worth doing something about, you've about three
years to get your congress critter motivated to enable the DoC to find
an alternative criteria to the one that allowed the incumbent operator
to win the renewal. Some reason(s) why "flat" and all its "first-come,
only-served" model is less useful than something else.

Joe Greco

2008-07-01 01:23:21 UTC

Permalink

Post by Peter Beckman

The selfish will abuse the lack of RFC1480 management and go straight to
martyspizza.us, even though they have one store, because it's available at
the time.

That's probably a reasonable reason to do a modest amount of research on
registrants. Of course, the idea that a registrar has any duty other than
to take money and "make it so" is heretical, I know.

Post by Peter Beckman

I would actually like to have seen a continued evolution of DNS towards
something slightly more useful. Implementation as a bookmark in a browser
would not make any sense; the Internet is not just the World Wide Web.
The search feature within a resolver is one reasonable starting point for
considering how you might go about this sort of thing, but I expect that
the solution might not really resemble anything currently existing.

Post by Peter Beckman

Nobody can or will cleanup the existing namespaces. New TLDs will
continue to make them more messy. More court battles over new TLDs will
come up. The wealthy will get their own TLDs (I can't afford .beckman,
but I'm sure Beckman Instruments can, who already own beckman.com, and
I'll just be screwed again), and small guys will not.
Search engines and browser tools will render the value of domain names
to approaching zero, .com will remain the namespace of choice, and that
new TLDs will be for the wealthy i.e. http://google/ and http://coke/ and
there will be more court battles for those trademarks.

It may go that way, but should we let it do so without comment?

... JG