From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #15 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Monday, February 21 2000 Volume 01 : Number 015 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 08:02:42 -0500 From: "Winer, Jonathan" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names 1. Again, these principles are enormously attractive, unless one wants to abandon the concept that a gTLD is a first step in structuring identity on online (the alternative being as Philip correctly states going to straight IP numbers, fine, abort the mission.) 2. Philip, I would like you to look more closely at the modifier in #2 on "Honesty" -- "unnecessarily," particularly as it intersects with principal #4 "competition." I would prefer the word "unnecessarily" be deleted, because I think that the principle of not increasing opportunities for malicious users to commit fraud is a fundamental one that should not be diluted. Alternatively, and as a weaker solution, I would urge the adjectives "fair and honest" to be placed in front of "competition," to modify the notion that some competition through choice on the web may indeed not be either "fair and honest" and should not be facilitated. -- jmw 3. Regardless, adoption of these nine principles would be a huge step forward into sense and sensibility. -- jmw > -----Original Message----- > From: Philip Sheppard [SMTP:philip.sheppard@aim.be] > Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 5:28 AM > To: wg-c@dnso.org > Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names > > Thanks for recent comment on the nine principles/ criteria. Allow me to > provide some answers to the points raised. > > 1. We do believe that the assumption that all gTLDs will/should stand for > something is valid. The alternative is to not bother with a gTLD and use > only the IP address. The moment you adopt the idea of gTLDs the net user > will believe they stand for something. To give anything a name is to endow > identity. If anyone believes in a system that does not endow identity they > should argue for IP address only. > > 2. The intent of the simplicity principle is indeed to avoid registries > having burdensome procedures imposed on them. It does not exclude a > registry > opting for a validation procedure. I have improved the wording and shifted > the numbering - see below. > > 3. The reason for the semantics principle containing "meaningful with a > significant number of net users" is intended to distinguish the global > nature of a gTLD versus the ccTLD. A domain name with a less than > significant number of net users would be better suited to a sub domain > within a ccTLD or a language charter gTLD. > > 4. Findability. Net users today use a gTLD as a means of finding. Dot com, > .edu, .mil are classifications and net users use classifications to find > things. It is the same for the ccTLDs. This principle does not say there > are > not better ways of finding things (there are and we recognise there will > be > much better tools in the future) but it recognises the way net users use > gTLDs. Net users will no longer have a Findability need when Findability > is > met by other means but not before. We will be happy to delete this > principle > at that time. > > 5. Multiplicity. This is clearly a principle of intent not one for the > basis > of choosing how many and when. It expresses an intent for a future. It is > to > be read in conjunction with the other principles. > > 6. Defining net user widely is indeed dangerous. Typically we refer to a > non-specialist public. The request to include "and registrars" was an > attempt to be inclusive but perhaps it is clearer not to make this "and > dont > forget us" statement. See changes below. > > 7. The idea to apply the principles to the dot EU proposal is a good one > and > will be attempted. > > 8. The principles are intended to help move the process rapidly forward to > the creation of new gTLDs. > > > Based on new input received here follows a new amendment to the > principles. > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Criteria for assessing a gTLD registry operator application, subject to > current technical constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should > be based on all the following principles : > > Principles affecting the relationship between a gTLD Registry operator and > those who may register > 1. Certainty: a gTLD should give the net user confidence that it stands > for > what it purports to stand for. > 2. Honesty - a gTLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for > malicious or criminal elements who wish to defraud net users. > > Principles effecting the relationship between Registries > 3. Differentiation - a gTLD should differentiate from all other gTLDs so > as > not to confuse net users. > 4. Competition - new gTLDs should foster competition in the domain name > space. > 5. Diversity - new gTLDs should foster the expression of views, both > commercial and non-commercial. > > Principles with query resolution and character encoding implications > 6. Semantics - a gTLD should be meaningful in a language with a > significant > number of net users. > 7. Findability - a gTLD should assist a net user to find a particular > domain > name. > > Other principles > 8. Multiplicity - new gTLDs should become available as needed to meet the > needs of an expanding Internet community. > 9. Simplicity - adherence of the above principles should not impose an > overly bureaucratic procedure on a registry. > > > > Philip > > > > > > NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone (404-881-7000) or by electronic mail (postmaster@alston.com), and delete this message and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you. ======================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:19:40 +0100 From: "Philip Sheppard" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names Jonathan, The inclusion of "unnecessarily" in principle 2. "Honesty - a gTLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for malicious or criminal elements who wish to defraud net users." is not intended as a qualification to honesty but as a recognition that any new gTLD will to some extent increase opportunities for fraud. I therefore agree completely to the proposal to include "fair and honest" to qualify "competition" and I will make this change. Philip ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:21:48 +0100 From: "Philip Sheppard" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names Revision 4 Based on new input received here follows a revision 4 to the principles. - ------------------------------------------------------------- Criteria for assessing a gTLD registry operator application, subject to current technical constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should be based on all the following principles : Principles affecting the relationship between a gTLD Registry operator and those who may register 1. Certainty: a gTLD should give the net user confidence that it stands for what it purports to stand for. 2. Honesty – a gTLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for malicious or criminal elements who wish to defraud net users. Principles effecting the relationship between Registries 3. Differentiation – a gTLD should differentiate from all other gTLDs so as not to confuse net users. 4. Competition – new gTLDs should foster fair and honest competition in the domain name space. 5. Diversity - new gTLDs should foster the expression of views, both commercial and non-commercial. Principles with query resolution and character encoding implications 6. Semantics – a gTLD should be meaningful in a language with a significant number of net users. 7. Findability – a gTLD should assist a net user to find a particular domain name. Other principles 8. Multiplicity - new gTLDs should become available as needed to meet the needs of an expanding Internet community. 9. Simplicity - adherence of the above principles should not impose an overly bureaucratic procedure on a registry. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:51:14 +0100 From: Mark Measday Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names: sense and sensibility? Given Mr Winer's reputation and experience in these areas, would it be possible to persuade him to posit accessory tracking, identification and authentication procedures that might require inclusion in the charter of new TLDs to avoid the problems listed below? This would enable registrars and registrants to operate with a fully articulated legal stance from the outset, both in terms of principles and of practice. "Winer, Jonathan" wrote: > 1. Again, these principles are enormously attractive, unless one wants to > abandon the concept that a gTLD is a first step in structuring identity on > online (the alternative being as Philip correctly states going to straight > IP numbers, fine, abort the mission.) > 2. Philip, I would like you to look more closely at the modifier in #2 on > "Honesty" -- "unnecessarily," particularly as it intersects with principal > #4 "competition." I would prefer the word "unnecessarily" be deleted, > because I think that the principle of not increasing opportunities for > malicious users to commit fraud is a fundamental one that should not be > diluted. Alternatively, and as a weaker solution, I would urge the > adjectives "fair and honest" to be placed in front of "competition," to > modify the notion that some competition through choice on the web may indeed > not be either "fair and honest" and should not be facilitated. -- jmw > 3. Regardless, adoption of these nine principles would be a huge step > forward into sense and sensibility. -- jmw > > > -----Original Message----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:56:24 +0100 From: Mark Measday Subject: [Fwd: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names: sense and sensibility?] Mark Measday wrote: > Given Mr Winer's reputation and experience in these areas, would it be possible to persuade him to posit accessory tracking, identification and authentication procedures that might require inclusion in the charter of new TLDs to avoid the problems listed below? > > This would enable registrars and registrants to operate with a fully articulated legal stance from the outset, both in terms of principles and of practice. > > "Winer, Jonathan" wrote: > > > 1. Again, these principles are enormously attractive, unless one wants to > > abandon the concept that a gTLD is a first step in structuring identity on > > online (the alternative being as Philip correctly states going to straight > > IP numbers, fine, abort the mission.) > > 2. Philip, I would like you to look more closely at the modifier in #2 on > > "Honesty" -- "unnecessarily," particularly as it intersects with principal > > #4 "competition." I would prefer the word "unnecessarily" be deleted, > > because I think that the principle of not increasing opportunities for > > malicious users to commit fraud is a fundamental one that should not be > > diluted. Alternatively, and as a weaker solution, I would urge the > > adjectives "fair and honest" to be placed in front of "competition," to > > modify the notion that some competition through choice on the web may indeed > > not be either "fair and honest" and should not be facilitated. -- jmw > > 3. Regardless, adoption of these nine principles would be a huge step > > forward into sense and sensibility. -- jmw > > > > > -----Original Message----- - -- _____________________________________________________________________ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The contents of this e-mail are confidential to the ordinary user of the e-mail address to which it was addressed and may also be privileged. If you are not the addressee of this e-mail you may not copy, forward, disclose or otherwise use it or any part of it in any form whatsoever. If you have received this e-mail in error please e-mail the sender by replying to this message. ______________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:35:39 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names Philip, > If anyone believes in a system that does not endow identity they > should argue for IP address only. Please place the undersigned in the cute little niche you've so thoughfully carved out. I don't think a label has to "stand for" anything other than itself, or have some meaning derived from a source outside of the label-space. Therefore I must, according to your absurd insistence on subordinating the DNS to some foreign semantic system (ASCII marks), seek not to use DNS at all. You may want to check with a slightly larger community with a long interest in things DNS if your view that labels must "stand for something (ignoring the "to whom" question) or not exist" is the no-brainer you (plural) take it for. A note to the namedroppers list would do, as would an I-D to the DNS WGs. If this "principle" for domain names marks the end of the difficult period of mutual accomidation between the DNS operational community and the marks community, it shouldn't be buried in a mishmash of other issues -- just come right out and advocate a ban on labels in the root that don't "stand for something". Please go back to WG-B where presumably your efforts are rewarded in the style you appreciate most. You haven't attempted to show the application of your "principles" to two TLD applicants, and what little can be charitably extracted from them as applicable to the charter and current agendea of WG-C is not worth sifting through what clearly isn't applicable to the charter and current agendea of WG-C. Uncharitably, and unamusedly yours, Eric Brunner P.S. "Na'a" means "mom" in Siksika. What does it mean in Flemish? In Walloon? In Bruxellois? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:30:57 -0000 From: "Keith Gymer" Subject: Re: [wg-c] STRAW POLL- responses My votes are as follows Question 1 1 - on the basis that, as Jonathan has observed, .com, .net and .org can be said to have "charters" according to RFC1591 - the problem is that these charters carried no enforcement obligation or mechanism, hence .com, .net and .org are now effectively undifferentiated and unchartered. I would also propose rewording of the options to make the requirement that charters must "meaningfuly differentiate" rather than necessarily limit (eg. I would support some sort of .nom for individuals, which would differentiate on the basis that registrants were real persons using their own names rather than corporate entities, for example, but which might otherwise have very loose limits on who could register). Question 2 1 - with the substitution of "differentiate" for "limit". Differentiation is the key, as Philip Sheppard's principles rightly make clear. Question 3 2 - Keith Gymer PAGE HARGRAVE Manfield House 1 Southampton Street London WC2R 0LR T: +44 (0)20 7240 6933 F: +44 (0)20 7379 0268 Email: london@pagehargrave.co.uk Web: www.pagehargrave.co.uk - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Weinberg" To: Sent: 11 February 2000 20:30 Subject: [wg-c] STRAW POLL Thanks, Kent, for getting me off my duff. (For those not following the discussion in ga, Kent Crispin has proposed on that list that the DNSO establish a *new* working group, separate from wg-c, to discuss chartered gTLDs. He makes two arguments why a new working group would be appropriate. First, he suggests, chartered TLDs are outside the scope of wg-c, b/c our own charter "is explicitly tied to generic TLDs, not any other kind of TLDs." Second, he gently urges that wg-c is not working, and that we are more likely to see actual progress toward implementation of new gTLDs by opening up another forum.) I think Kent's first argument is simply wrong -- it is based on the notion that a chartered TLD is not a "gTLD". It's true that Kent circulated a note last summer proposing that we define gTLD as "a TLD that has no enforced criteria for the entities that may register in it," but his proposal got no support. Kent himself noted that his proposal "departs from the rfc1591 definition." RFC 1591 explicitly included all of EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT in its list of "generic TLDs," notwithstanding that some of those are indisputably chartered. That's continued to be the generally accepted terminology. So whatever reasons there may be for establishing a new working group to look at sponsored or chartered TLDs, the notion that proposals for establishing those domains are outside of wg-c's charter isn't one of them. I've got a lot of sympathy for Kent's second argument, and I understand his frustration. Here's an attempt to start doing something about it. I proposed a couple of weeks ago (and got no objection) that I would post to wg-c "a straw poll on the issue of special-purpose or 'chartered' gTLDs: That's an issue that got a great deal of attention on the list last month, and I expect a straw poll would be helpful in helping us figure out where members of the list stand." So here goes. Jon Jonathan Weinberg co-chair, wg-c weinberg@msen.com WG-C STRAW POLL Please respond before midnight UTC following February 21, 2000. QUESTION ONE Please select from the following possibilities, *as applied to the deployment of new gTLDs in the name space over the medium to long term*: 1. All new gTLDs must have charters that meaningfully limit the universe of people who can register in those gTLDs. 2. The name space should not include any new chartered gTLDs. (Alternatively, if new gTLDs have charters, those charters may not place meaningful limits on the universe of people who can register in the gTLD.) 3. ICANN, in selecting new gTLDs, should approve some chartered gTLDs and some unchartered ones. (Alternatively, ICANN should require that all gTLDs have charters, but it should approve some gTLDs with charters that meaningfully limit the universe of people who can register in the gTLD, and some gTLDs with charters that do not impose any such limits.) 4. ICANN should simply select new registries and leave issues of names and charters (including whether to limit the universe of people who can register in the domain, and if so how) to the new registries. QUESTION TWO The working group has reached and reaffirmed a recommendation that the initial expansion of the name space should consist of six to ten new gTLDs, followed by an evaluation period. Please select from the following possibilities, *as applied to that initial rollout*. 1. All of the gTLDs in the initial rollout must have charters that meaningfully limit the universe of people who can register in those gTLDs. 2. The initial rollout should not include any new chartered gTLDs. (Alternatively, any charters for new gTLDs may not place meaningful limits on the universe of people who can register in the gTLD.) 3. ICANN, in selecting new gTLDs in the initial rollout, should approve some chartered gTLDs and some unchartered ones. (Alternatively, ICANN should require that all gTLDs have charters, but it should approve some gTLDs with charters that meaningfully limit the universe of people who can register in the gTLD, and some gTLDs with charters that do not impose any such limits.) 4. ICANN should simply select new registries and leave issues of names and charters (including whether to limit the universe of people who can register in the domain, and if so how) to the new registries. QUESTION THREE The issue of chartered gTLDs is tied up with the larger issue of how ICANN should select new gTLDs -- in particular, whether (a) ICANN itself should be the final arbiter of new gTLDs' names and charters, or (b) ICANN should simply select new registries and leave the choice of names and charters to them. I think that at this point we can't avoid confronting the larger question of how ICANN should pick new TLDs in the initial rollout. (Actually, we're returning to the question; part of last summer's straw poll spoke to the same issue. The results then were inconclusive.) Please select from among these possibilities: 1. ICANN picks a set of registries according to objective criteria. (Alternatively, ICANN narrows the set of applicants using objective criteria, and chooses among the remaining applicants, if necessary, via lotteries or auctions). Once chosen, registries pick their own gTLD names and associated charters (if any), subject to a process under which ICANN can resolve conflicts and can deem certain gTLD strings out of bounds. 2. ICANN, through a working group or otherwise, identifies a set of gTLDs to be introduced in the initial rollout, and establishes names and charters for those new TLDs. It solicits applications from would-be registries to run those TLDs, and picks the ones it deems best-suited or best- qualified. 3. ICANN, through a working group or otherwise, identifies a set of gTLDs to be introduced in the initial rollout, and establishes names and charters for those new TLDs. It solicits applications from would-be registries to run those TLDs, and picks those registries through a lottery or auction process. 4. Each would-be registry proposing a new gTLD applies to the Names Council (or to ICANN directly) for approval; if the gTLD is to be bounded by a charter, the applicant must supply one. If the application is approved, the applicant becomes the new registry, subject to its proposed charter. 5. Each person proposing a new gTLD applies to the Names Council for the formation of a working group devoted to that gTLD (or to several gTLDs). The working group identifies a registry/sponsor, and generates a charter, for its proposed new TLD. If the gTLD is approved, then the entity identified by the working group becomes the registry/sponsor. The identity of the registry operator may be set for competitive bid (and periodic rebid). 6. Other (please explain). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:35:40 +0100 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Subject: Meaningful names and IP addresses (Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names) At 11:28 21.02.00 +0100, Philip Sheppard wrote: >1. We do believe that the assumption that all gTLDs will/should stand for >something is valid. The alternative is to not bother with a gTLD and use >only the IP address. The moment you adopt the idea of gTLDs the net user >will believe they stand for something. To give anything a name is to endow >identity. If anyone believes in a system that does not endow identity they >should argue for IP address only. unfortunately this argument, while attractive, is false. The name/address separation is critical to the operation of the Internet; keeping routing operational demands that addresses be tied (albeit loosely) to the physical structure of the network, and can be changed (albeit at some cost) when the network changes; while the use of names allows us to guarantee globally unique identifiers that are tied to organizational hierarchy, and are guaranteed to be immune against most, if not all, technical demands for change. Thus, even if domain names were all of the form "a2w8r", or similar meaningless strings, they would still be vastly preferable to IP addresses for many purposes where long-term stable references to network resources are needed. I personally agree with the conclusion (that gTLDs should be expected to "stand for something"), but not with the premise (that one could use IP address directly if one did not need the "stand for something" aspect. Regards, Harald Tveit Alvestrand - -- Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:33:35 +0100 From: "Philip Sheppard" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names Eric It may help me if you explain more fully what you do advocate for the DNS. 1. Do you indeed advocate a DNS with random characters. If so why? 2. Is this different to no DNS at all (just use the IP address)? How so? 3. What advantages would such a system have? 4. Do you believe that the majority of net users would want such a system? Philip ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:49:23 +0100 From: "Philip Sheppard" Subject: Re: Meaningful names and IP addresses (Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names) Harald Thank you for the explanation on IP versus meaningless domain names. Philip ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:01:24 -0000 From: "Keith Gymer" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names "Eric Brunner" > Uncharitably, and unamusedly wrote (originally at much greater length) > Philip, > > > If anyone believes in a system that does not endow identity they > > should argue for IP address only. > > Please place the undersigned in the cute little niche you've so > thoughfully carved out. yours, > Eric Brunner > Naa, surely not, Eric. (Naa=dialect NO) Forgive me, but I was labouring under the evident misconception that .naa was intended as a meaningful abbreviation for north american aborigines or some such. Perhaps the meaning is shrouded in the .mist (English meaning or German meaning? ;-) If you don't care that the gTLD you seek is meaningful then why not just buy up one of the substantially unused ISO3166 codes and get started with that as certain other entrepreneurs have already done? I agree that Philip's basic proposition then begs the question of meaningful to whom, but that is indeed a subsidiary question and surely not one which should have attracted such an uncharitable response from yourself. As I've written elsewhere, I believe that "differentiation" is the key, and that also implies some sort of "meaningful" distinction (at least to those likely to be interested in registration in the relevant TLD). I cannot see what value meaningless TLDs would have other than to greatly add to the potential for mass confusion for everybody. Regards Keith ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:52:05 +0100 From: "Philip Sheppard" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names Eric I believe that Harald just answered my question 2 to you. Do you agree with this analysis? If so that just leaves 1, 3 and 4! Philip ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 11:59:40 -0500 From: Milton Mueller Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names Philip Sheppard wrote: > 1. We do believe that the assumption that all gTLDs will/should stand for > something is valid. Philip, this assumption is utterly meaningless. "Stand for something" to WHOM? There is a group of Dutch activists that would like the TLD .xs4l. To them that string is meaningful. ("excess for all") To someone in Korea it may not be. As a trademark person I assume that you are familiar with the concept of "secondary meaning." There are lots of putatively "meaningless" character strings (one could say that .com is one of them) that can acquire significant meaning through the investment of a business in creating that meaning, or simply through the recognition of a community. The meaning can be an association with reputation, quality, functionality, or any of a hundred other things. What you really seem to be saying is that a small group of people should decide for everyone else what is meaningful and what is not. > The alternative is to not bother with a gTLD and use > only the IP address. The alternative is to let registries select the strings they want to operate and do the work to vest those strings with meaning. > 3. The reason for the semantics principle containing "meaningful with a > significant number of net users" is intended to distinguish the global > nature of a gTLD versus the ccTLD. A domain name with a less than > significant number of net users would be better suited to a sub domain > within a ccTLD or a language charter gTLD. Again, this is just none of your business, or ICANN's business. The name space is not scarce. TLDs do not have to be rationed out like water in the Sahara. There can be regional TLDs, local TLDs, commercial and noncommercial, political and cultural. ICANN is not in a better position than a free and open marketplace to determine what is "meaningful" to net users. If TLDs are not needed they will fail in the marketplace. > 4. Findability. Net users today use a gTLD as a means of finding. Dot com, > .edu, .mil are classifications and net users use classifications to find > things. Let's try to be accurate and a bit more sophisticated in our assessment of the role of domain names in user searches. SOME net users, in a very limited set of circumstances, will type in a name within a TLD and hope it leads them to the site they want. You clearly have done no research on this and with respect to user information-seeking behavior you are completely out of your league. Primarily, top-level extensions help users to remember and recognize domain names. They are not very useful as a way of guessing where a desired site is. Only as a last resort are they used to find web sites. Just look at basic facts. Over 60% of all the world's domains are in dot com. What, then, does the TLD tell you when you are looking for a business? Nothing. In Europe, you don't know whether it will be under a ccTLD or com. If its name is reasonably generic, as most names are, you have no idea what form it will take as a SLD. Typing in [guessedname].com is recognized by users as a last resort, and came in DEAD LAST in our surveys as a searching technique. From an e-commerce standpoint, the most important domain names are the domains to which users return regularly. Those are the names people store or remember. So again, the mnemonic character of the name, plus marketing, are what matters, not the categorization scheme of the TLD space. Answer me this: why would a business or non-commercial organization WANT to operate a TLD registry if they didn't think the string was meaningful and they didn't think anyone wanted to register within it? Can we not trust this simple fact to determine what goes into the TLD space? > It is the same for the ccTLDs. If I am trying to find an organization in Africa, it is unlikely that I will even know what the relevant ccTLD is, much less which SLD categorization structure that country has adopted. The domain name structure itself provides absolutely no help to me in finding that organization. I use a search engine or Yahoo or link sites or business cards to find it. By your logic, Philip, more than half of the world's country code TLDs shouldn't exist, because they are not recognized by the vast majority of the worlds net users. > This principle does not say there are > not better ways of finding things (there are and we recognise there will be > much better tools in the future) but it recognises the way net users use > gTLDs. No evidence supplied as to "how net users use gTLDs." Indeed, the logic breaks down entirely. Suppose we create a new ".bank" TLD tomorrow. What will this tell me about where to find a bank on the Internet? Very little. Most of the banks have already registered in dot com, banks in foreign countries have registered under country codes, many of the country codes have non-standardized SLD categorization schemes that are not guessable to many users. The simple fact is that if you want domain names to be a classification and findability tool, you don't need new TLDs at all. You can just create your own classification scheme under dot com, a country code, or any other TLD. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 12:10:42 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: Meaningful names and IP addresses (Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names) Thanks Harald, I should have mentioned renumbering. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:19:31 -0800 From: "Bret A. Fausett" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names > 1. We do believe that the assumption that all gTLDs will/should stand for > something is valid. The alternative is to not bother with a gTLD and use > only the IP address. The moment you adopt the idea of gTLDs the net user > will believe they stand for something. To give anything a name is to endow > identity. If anyone believes in a system that does not endow identity they > should argue for IP address only. I think this statement as phrased unfairly merges the idea of "identity" with "memorability." A new gTLD might be beneficial not because it denotes something specific, but because it is easy for users to remember (.zzz, .123, .web, for instance). Under the proposed principle, ".zzz" is a meaningless domain name, even though it has the obvious benefit of being easy to remember. I see no reason why gTLDs that have a specific identity can't coexist with gTLDs that are meaningless (or simply memorable). Even the meaningless gTLDs might take on a community identity over time (depending on the marketing and the users who congregate to them), but if we held out "identity" as a prerequisite, they would never be added. For those gTLDs that do purport to have a specific identity, however, I agree with you though that they should not be deceptively marketed and that the identity should be meaningful and enforced. But I wouldn't support using "identity" to exclude other models. -- Bret ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 20:15:00 +0100 From: Mark Measday Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names Mssrs Sheppard, Mueller, Alvestrand, etc. First, I should like to declare my cultural bias, I always wanted to be a North American Indian, but was born in the wrong place. I look forward to the day when I can register josmarian.naa or conceivably josmaria.naa, should it arrive. Eric probably won't let me, as readership of G:M. Henty at an early age won't qualify, but there you go. The rest of this email is metaphor, because we have been circling the theoretical public good vs realised private benefit argument too long, there is no answer but appropriate compromise, and.the participants already roughly know what that is. Second, Milton points out that the cake can be cut vertically, horizontally or in slices corresponding to cultural longitude and latitude. And the creation of meaning through business or other investment is exactly correct. But if all decisions are to be left to the market, Milton, and they are not very important anyway, why are we discussing it? Your analysis poses the paradox of pure freemarket economics: that a putative administration, acting in full knowledge of the costs of its acts, and attempting to mirror the desires of all, should dissolve itself to achieve full, market freedom. And the logical, utilitarian, corollary (which economists will slip around, saying it's philosophy), that the individual is better off not existing, he thus saves vast sums of money and poses no burden to the state. Consequently, we should be out there selling dot.milt, etc., in the market, to survive. There is no meta-discussion possible unless those who seek to appoint themselves to positions of responsibility and administrative duty recognise that their processes, whilst theoretically imposing on what might be called the 'general will', in practice confer benefits of stability and predictability on the body politic. AKA gTLD-MOU, ICANN or similar, for example. This makes life boring for some and pleasantly predictable for others, who have developed an aversion to the nasty, brutish and short alternative.. Consequently, there are very clear market forces creating demand for the kind of stability that Philip assumes as a good, namely the multinationals and governments who are having to adapt to life on the internet, and for whom DNS is a small practical, but aggressive conceptual, difficulty. That the US market is more developed and more powerful than others is an argument for its observation and its restraint, not necessary adoption of its norms. That it should be bored by the relative lack of advancement of the rest of the world is no surprise. This raises the top down/bottom up questions of sovereignty (and/or the creation of meaning, extension of power) that ICANN, amongst others, hasn't been able to solve over the ages. The US defends free speech, l'Académie Française probably still vets the dictionary, the Arab world prizes fidelity to the Koran. It used to be top/down by force, it is usually top/down by some means of persuasion, and everyone knows the theoretical good of pure bottom-up organisation leads to unmanageable confusion, different in every country. The Internet community has shown great sensitivity to these issues, the commercial entrepreneurs, defenders of property, and their acolytes in general not. Thirdly, the learning curve. I think Philip puts the questions in the nine principles in a digested manner susceptible to use by the communities ICANN needs to gain the public international legitimacy it needs. They are not perfect, and in fact are a partial subset and restatement of other posts. Milton and Jon can both perfectly well claim that they have said all this before (conceivably too well). However, if it is a compromise statement, amongst others, that can be used as a basis for the development of an appropriate ten commandments, I for one would look forward to the meeting in Cairo with greater anticipation, a meeting which is substantially about getting the rest of the world to be as perceptive and clever as you gentlemen. Or the reverse, as they may have a similar project for you. Without sounding too apocalyptic, if you can get public global agreement on the names of basic shared things (cf. discussion in Aristotle, Aquinas and others), there isn't much you can't do. On the other, practical, hand, if Eric ever tries to drive by the streetsigns around the villages in Kent, rather like any bantustan, he will find they take him in circles. I assume the Alexandrians do much the same. Cavafy, a sort of Graeco-Egyptian T.S. Eliot of Alexandria, is probably the wrong place to start looking for the roadmap. Perhaps improving on the post-war, altruistic US desire to build an appropriate framework for peace, necessarily cannibalised by lesser brethren, and now sorely rejected. MM Disclaimer: The above is an expression of personal opinion only. It also should not be construed to contain any expressions of personal intent. Milton Mueller wrote: > Philip Sheppard wrote: > > > 1. We do believe that the assumption that all gTLDs will/should stand for > > something is valid. > > Philip, this assumption is utterly meaningless. "Stand for something" to WHOM? > There is a group of Dutch activists that would like the TLD .xs4l. To them that > string is meaningful. ("excess for all") To someone in Korea it may not be. As a > trademark person I assume that you are familiar with the concept of "secondary > meaning." There are lots of putatively "meaningless" character strings (one > could say that .com is one of them) that can acquire significant meaning through > the investment of a business in creating that meaning, or simply through the > recognition of a community. The meaning can be an association with reputation, > quality, functionality, or any of a hundred other things. > > What you really seem to be saying is that a small group of people should decide > for everyone else what is meaningful and what is not. > > > The alternative is to not bother with a gTLD and use > > only the IP address. > > The alternative is to let registries select the strings they want to operate and > do the work to vest those strings with meaning. > > > 3. The reason for the semantics principle containing "meaningful with a > > significant number of net users" is intended to distinguish the global > > nature of a gTLD versus the ccTLD. A domain name with a less than > > significant number of net users would be better suited to a sub domain > > within a ccTLD or a language charter gTLD. > > Again, this is just none of your business, or ICANN's business. The name space > is not scarce. TLDs do not have to be rationed out like water in the Sahara. > There can be regional TLDs, local TLDs, commercial and noncommercial, political > and cultural. ICANN is not in a better position than a free and open marketplace > to determine what is "meaningful" to net users. If TLDs are not needed they will > fail in the marketplace. > > > 4. Findability. Net users today use a gTLD as a means of finding. Dot com, > > .edu, .mil are classifications and net users use classifications to find > > things. > > Let's try to be accurate and a bit more sophisticated in our assessment of the > role of domain names in user searches. SOME net users, in a very limited set of > circumstances, will type in a name within a TLD and hope it leads them to the > site they want. You clearly have done no research on this and with respect to > user information-seeking behavior you are completely out of your league. > Primarily, top-level extensions help users to remember and recognize domain > names. They are not very useful as a way of guessing where a desired site is. > Only as a last resort are they used to find web sites. Just look at basic facts. > Over 60% of all the world's domains are in dot com. What, then, does the TLD > tell you when you are looking for a business? Nothing. In Europe, you don't know > whether it will be under a ccTLD or com. If its name is reasonably generic, as > most names are, you have no idea what form it will take as a SLD. Typing in > [guessedname].com is recognized by users as a last resort, and came in DEAD LAST > in our surveys as a searching technique. > > >From an e-commerce standpoint, the most important domain names are the domains > to which users return regularly. Those are the names people store or remember. > So again, the mnemonic character of the name, plus marketing, are what matters, > not the categorization scheme of the TLD space. > > Answer me this: why would a business or non-commercial organization WANT to > operate a TLD registry if they didn't think the string was meaningful and they > didn't think anyone wanted to register within it? Can we not trust this simple > fact to determine what goes into the TLD space? > > > It is the same for the ccTLDs. > > If I am trying to find an organization in Africa, it is unlikely that I will > even know what the relevant ccTLD is, much less which SLD categorization > structure that country has adopted. The domain name structure itself provides > absolutely no help to me in finding that organization. I use a search engine or > Yahoo or link sites or business cards to find it. > > By your logic, Philip, more than half of the world's country code TLDs shouldn't > exist, because they are not recognized by the vast majority of the worlds net > users. > > > This principle does not say there are > > not better ways of finding things (there are and we recognise there will be > > much better tools in the future) but it recognises the way net users use > > gTLDs. > > No evidence supplied as to "how net users use gTLDs." Indeed, the logic breaks > down entirely. Suppose we create a new ".bank" TLD tomorrow. What will this tell > me about where to find a bank on the Internet? Very little. Most of the banks > have already registered in dot com, banks in foreign countries have registered > under country codes, many of the country codes have non-standardized SLD > categorization schemes that are not guessable to many users. > > The simple fact is that if you want domain names to be a classification and > findability tool, you don't need new TLDs at all. You can just create your own > classification scheme under dot com, a country code, or any other TLD. ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #15 *************************