From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #17 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Wednesday, February 23 2000 Volume 01 : Number 017 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:37:57 -0300 (GMT+3) From: Raul Echeberria Subject: Re: [wg-c] STRAW POLL Please consider my vote after deadline. I was in holidays from 11th until today and I have not seen the voting call until now. If you read my comments on the wg-c report, you could see that my answer is there. > > 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. > My vote - alternative 1. Comments - Option 3 was not very clear. With more work in the text of option 3, may be I'd be able to agree. > > 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. > My vote - option 1. comments - again, option 3 is not very clear for me. > > 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: > > 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. My vote - option 2. Comment - I believe that ICANN trough the board or the NC, should establishes a minimal charters expressing the objectives of each gTLD to be created. ICANN should analyze proposals from would-be registries considering charters proposed for them to decide which organization candidate is the most qualified to achieve the objectives ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 15:26:06 -0000 From: "Keith Gymer" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names "Dave Crocker" wrote > > The modified text I suggested calls for a gTLD to have some associated text > which describes its intended use. The association between that text and > the gTLD string is the intended "meaning". The presence of that meaning is > intended to underscore the mnemonic potential for the gTLD. > > I suspect what Milton is forgetting is that all strings with a "meaning" do > not have it inherently. It is through association with other things in the > world that we impart that meaning. Hence, there is nothing in the least > wrong, or even unusual, to refer to the string "zzz" as having meaning, > given a legitimate associative context. Exactly right - as Dave observes, the desirabilty of having a meaning does not preclude the "meaning" being defined rather than being inherent. A point which Philip has also made before is that new gTLDs ought preferably (in the view of supporters of "meaningfulness") to have a meaning for more than a narrow (national)set of internet users. Another issue, however, is ambiguity and deliberate exploitation of such ambiguity leading to confusion of meaning (or an identity crisis;-) which is readily apparent from the alternative (mis)use of ISO 3166 ccTLDs for other than the geographical significance which was the reason for their original creation (eg .tm, .as, .md etc). Personally, I don't think that such significant ambiguity would be desirable in any new gTLD. Keith ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 15:05:36 -0600 From: dwmaher@ibm.net Subject: [wg-c] Reply to straw poll QUESTION ONE: Option 3 QUESTION TWO: Option 3 QUESTION THREE: Option 3 for the rollout, but option 5 thereafter. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 17:47:30 +0100 From: Mark Measday Subject: [wg-c] straw poll QUESTION ONE:3. QUESTION TWO:3 QUESTION THREE: 3 initially, then 5 MM ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 09:16:29 -0800 From: "Bret A. Fausett" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names > As to "memorability" vs. "meaning"... This attempts to draw a stronger > distinction than the context allows, especially since this context is not > one limited to psychologists and/or linguists. The distinction also might > be wrong. IANAL (I am not a linguist), but I simply wanted to point out what I thought was a missing element of the proposed principle. A good definition will encompass both meanings, and I think Philip's reformulation and his statements on this list satisfy that concern. -- Bret ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:57:57 +0100 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names At 03:26 PM 2/22/2000 +0000, Keith Gymer wrote: >Another issue, however, is ambiguity and deliberate exploitation of such >ambiguity leading to confusion of meaning (or an identity crisis;-) which is >readily apparent from the alternative (mis)use of ISO 3166 ccTLDs for other >than the geographical significance which was the reason for their original >creation (eg .tm, .as, .md etc). Personally, I don't think that such >significant ambiguity would be desirable in any new gTLD. My own opinion is that we should avoid trying to impose very much precision about the strings. In the early stages, there is some experimental benefit is trying strings that are quite different, to get a sense of the types or areas of gTLDs that users want. Eventually, having .att for attorneys and .law for lawyers seems just fine to me, in spite of the resulting ambiguity. d/ ps. Most of the nine "principles" describe requirements for which there are no straightforward or even accurate means to test achievement or failure. They involve fuzzy human goals. It does not matter that they are good goals, just that we can create mechanisms to achieve them or mechanism for testing whether we have achieved them. =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 10:02:39 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 09:16:29AM -0800, Bret A. Fausett wrote: > > As to "memorability" vs. "meaning"... This attempts to draw a stronger > > distinction than the context allows, especially since this context is not > > one limited to psychologists and/or linguists. The distinction also might > > be wrong. > > IANAL (I am not a linguist), but I simply wanted to point out what I thought > was a missing element of the proposed principle. A good definition will > encompass both meanings, and I think Philip's reformulation and his > statements on this list satisfy that concern. > IAACAYGTAL (I'm as close as you've got to a linguist -- a.b.d in experimental cognitive psychology, focusing on human memory, comprehension, questioning, and inference generation, with heavy linguistic crossover -- references available on request, most current work published in "Understanding Language Understanding: Computational Models of Reading", Ashwin Ram & Kenneth Moorman (eds.), 1999, MIT Press., Chapter 5.) I'd just like to point out that if you're going to start paying attention to research in these areas w.r.t. gTLDs, I'm going to strongly recommend people start seriously considering my pleas to consider the past 30-40 years' research on categorization, memorability, and generalization over in WG-B. What lawyers would like to consider memorable and what psychologists' hard data point to as memorable do not overlap as often as many here would like to believe. Same goes for meaning. But that's another argument, dealing with contextual dependency. Suffice it to say that most of the discussion regarding memorability and meaning has been missing the mark. The answer, which many of you may not like, is that there is no meaning without context. And in this arena, context comes from two places: the TLD, and the current services provided under the IP pointed to by the FQDNs under the given SLD -- which, I'll remind everyone again, is more than just web pages. These two are nonseperable; the TLD itself only has meaning in the context of the FQDNs under it, which themselves derive meaning as above. A string of letters in isolation has no meaning, except that which prior and current context brings to the table. That meaning is fluid and dynamic, and wholly dependent upon context. That context is fluid and dynamic, and wholly dependent upon the actors who work to create said context. In short, a TLD has no intrinsic meaning. An SLD has no intrinsic meaning. A FQDN has no intrinsic meaning. None of these have any deep memorability, except as provided by meaning, and dictated by how humans categorize. It's nonsensical to talk about the memorability of a TLD in isolation, as it's never used in that way. At best, you can facilitate or hinder the human's ability to 'chunk' the TLD. Same goes for the SLD, and the SLD and TLD in combination. This all falls under shallow memory effects, like the "7 +/-2 rule". Similarly, it goes out the window once there is a deeper meaning associated with the string of letters and numbers that make up a FQDN. Then, it's all context, and all categorization. - -- Mark C. Langston mark@bitshift.org Systems & Network Admin San Jose, CA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 10:05:57 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" Subject: [wg-c] A brief note on linguists... I just realized a misconception is bubbling under the surface here... linguists are, to a great extent, focused on intra-word effects, and low-level language phenomena, and many work in the abstract, concentrating on languages as systems. The phenomena we're discussing here are squarely in the realm of, and speak to the core of, experimental cognitive psychology. - -- Mark C. Langston mark@bitshift.org Systems & Network Admin San Jose, CA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 13:53:48 -0500 From: Milton Mueller Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names Agreed. That is why we should stop fussing with these so-called "principles" and get back to work on the real task facing WG-C. We have a consensus on 6-10, we are now in the process of determining implementation. If Mr. sheppard or others want to use these principles as a way of evaluating SPECIFIC proposals to implement 6-10 new TLDs in the next six months, they are welcome to do so, and others are welcome to apply other principles. But even if we happen to come to an agreement on such generalities (and the likelihood is that we will not) we will not agree on how they apply to specific proposals. so let's start with specific proposals. Dave Crocker wrote: > Most of the nine "principles" describe requirements for which there > are no straightforward or even accurate means to test achievement or > failure. They involve fuzzy human goals. It does not matter that they are > good goals, just that we can create mechanisms to achieve them or mechanism > for testing whether we have achieved them. > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 20:26:08 +0100 From: Mark Measday Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names firm .shop .web .arts .rec .info .nom good testbed for the nine principles. > > Dave Crocker wrote: > > > Most of the nine "principles" describe requirements for which there > > are no straightforward or even accurate means to test achievement or > > failure. They involve fuzzy human goals. It does not matter that they are > > good goals, just that we can create mechanisms to achieve them or mechanism > > for testing whether we have achieved them. > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 15:08:25 -0500 From: "Kevin J. Connolly" Subject: [wg-c] Specific Implementation Proposal: [Was:Re: nine principles for domain names] Mark Measday 02/22/00 02:26PM wrote: >firm .shop .web .arts .rec .info .nom >good testbed for the nine principles. This is a good start. Indeed these TLDs could serve as a good testbed for more than just the nine principles (with which I do not agree). Since there already exists a thoroughly-tested implementation of a shared registration system for precisely these TLDs (which will no doubt bring with it a thorough, real-world set of disputes over rights in and to the TLDs and the SLDs to be delegated thereunder) let us stop the nonsense (especially the "scientific dialog" about principles, linguistics, semantics and the nature of pinhead-dancing daemons) and ask CORE to propose a system for leveling the playing field between the "inside" registrars (the existing CORE members) and the "newby" registrars (those who will be admitted as a precondition of the Internet Community reaching a consensus that this proposal should be implemented). For those readers who are unaware of this, there's *no* love lost between your author and either the membership or the leadership of CORE. But enough is enough: it's time for the fat lady to warm up her voice for the end of the first act. And the truth is that all we're speaking to is the end of the first act. It's not hard to craft a system under which CORE can be divested of its dominion over these TLDs at the end of the testbed period if the consensus of the Internet Community is that one or more of these TLDs should be delegated to a different registry. Neither is it challenging for this WG to address other, specific proposals for the implementation of top level domains. I have, on several occasions, floated a proposal which addresses the need to prevent CORE from becoming a new NSI (read: monopolist) while also preventing the newbies from engaging in an unsupportable free ride on the backs of the CORE membership. If it's felt there is a need for me to post the proposal once again, I will. However, I also think that it's time for CORE to propose something constructive for a change. Please note: the pending proposal to admit new members into CORE upon their payment into CORE's coffers of an amount equal to what the CORE membership have paid in since the Association was founded is a true non-started. But enough is enough: either this WG is capable of making a proposal for the implementation of new GTLDs, or it ain't. The current discussion is not moving us toward the promised land. It's time we actually began to dunk our toes in the River. Kevin J. Connolly The opinions expressed are those of the author, not of Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman LLP This note is not legal advice. If it were, it would come with an invoice. As usual, please disregard the trailer which follows. ********************************************************************** The information contained in this electronic message is confidential and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections, and/or other applicable protections from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com- munication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communi- cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 15:21:36 -0500 From: "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." Subject: RE: [wg-c] A brief note on linguists... Sorry, Mark, but I cannot let your statement go uncorrected. I am not a linguist, but I majored in the subject in college. It most certainly is not a misconception that Linguistics is an inappropriate field to rely upon to address the theoretical issues some are raising here. Indeed, I can think of no other field that has a greater body of scholarship on the multiple levels of meaning in language. (It may be, however, that most of us do not have the requisite level of expertise to access that material, which may not be a bad thing since our task is much more limited than the broad generalizations presented by this discussion.) Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. www.cyberspaces.org rod@cyberspaces.org > Subject: [wg-c] A brief note on linguists... > > > I just realized a misconception is bubbling under the surface here... > linguists are, to a great extent, focused on intra-word effects, and > low-level language phenomena, and many work in the abstract, > concentrating on languages as systems. > > The phenomena we're discussing here are squarely in the realm of, and > speak to the core of, experimental cognitive psychology. > > > -- > Mark C. Langston > mark@bitshift.org > Systems & Network Admin > San Jose, CA > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 12:38:05 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Specific Implementation Proposal: [Was:Re: nine principles for domain names] On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 03:08:25PM -0500, Kevin J. Connolly wrote: > Mark Measday 02/22/00 02:26PM wrote: > > >firm .shop .web .arts .rec .info .nom > > >good testbed for the nine principles. > > This is a good start. Indeed these TLDs could serve as a good > testbed for more than just the nine principles (with which I do not agree). > Since there already exists a thoroughly-tested implementation of a > shared registration system for precisely these TLDs (which will no > doubt bring with it a thorough, real-world set of disputes over rights > in and to the TLDs and the SLDs to be delegated thereunder) > let us stop the nonsense (especially the "scientific dialog" about > principles, linguistics, semantics and the nature of pinhead-dancing > daemons) and ask CORE to propose a system for leveling the playing > field between the "inside" registrars (the existing CORE members) > and the "newby" registrars (those who will be admitted as a precondition > of the Internet Community reaching a consensus that this proposal should > be implemented). > > For those readers who are unaware of this, there's *no* love lost > between your author and either the membership or the leadership > of CORE. But enough is enough: it's time for the fat lady to warm > up her voice for the end of the first act. And the truth is that all we're > speaking to is the end of the first act. It's not hard to craft a system > under which CORE can be divested of its dominion over these TLDs > at the end of the testbed period if the consensus of the Internet Community > is that one or more of these TLDs should be delegated to a different > registry. Neither is it challenging for this WG to address other, specific > proposals for the implementation of top level domains. Suggesting this when the question of whether ICANN should even be in the business of dictating the new TLDs is still on the table is premature. Furthermore, I seem to recall that registrars were pre-selling SLDs in these TLDs at some point last year. I'd be interested to hear what happened to those registrations, and the monies that paid for them. Finally, since these 7 have proven to be contentious and were decided upon several years ago when the Internet was a different place, I suggest that if and when the time is right to discuss which TLDs should be chosen, a new set should be agreed upon, and these old, contentious seven abandoned. - -- Mark C. Langston mark@bitshift.org Systems & Network Admin San Jose, CA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 12:52:01 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" Subject: Re: [wg-c] A brief note on linguists... Linguistics, in pure form, does not speak to memorability, says little about its relationship to categorization, and says nothing about contextual dependency at the level we're discussing. Sorry, but I'm pulling rank here. The field of linquistics and the field of cognitive science intersect to a small degree here, but linguistic inquiry is not the proper avenue from which to approach this. You may have studied it in college; I hold several degrees and have published numerous papers in the relevant field. The only reason I'm doing contract work instead of working towards tenure at an Ivy is because the money's better. On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 03:21:36PM -0500, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote: > > Sorry, Mark, but I cannot let your statement go uncorrected. I am not a > linguist, but I majored in the subject in college. > > It most certainly is not a misconception that Linguistics is an > inappropriate field to rely upon to address the theoretical issues some are > raising here. Indeed, I can think of no other field that has a greater body > of scholarship on the multiple levels of meaning in language. (It may be, > however, that most of us do not have the requisite level of expertise to > access that material, which may not be a bad thing since our task is much > more limited than the broad generalizations presented by this discussion.) > > > Subject: [wg-c] A brief note on linguists... > > > > > > I just realized a misconception is bubbling under the surface here... > > linguists are, to a great extent, focused on intra-word effects, and > > low-level language phenomena, and many work in the abstract, > > concentrating on languages as systems. > > > > The phenomena we're discussing here are squarely in the realm of, and > > speak to the core of, experimental cognitive psychology. > > > > > > -- > > Mark C. Langston > > mark@bitshift.org > > Systems & Network Admin > > San Jose, CA > > - -- Mark C. Langston mark@bitshift.org Systems & Network Admin San Jose, CA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 16:08:03 -0500 From: "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." Subject: RE: [wg-c] A brief note on linguists... I certainly do not want to go down this road. Obviously, "memorability" is not a linguisitic concept; nor are the other terms you use. Those are your terms and you use them to suppport your argument. The issue, however, concerns a disagreement over approaches to how "meaning" is understood. You prefer one discipline over another and that is fine. It is silly to debate this in the context of the task before the WG-C. Rod > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark C. Langston [mailto:skritch@home.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 3:52 PM > To: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. > Cc: wg-c@dnso.org > Subject: Re: [wg-c] A brief note on linguists... > > > Linguistics, in pure form, does not speak to memorability, says little > about its relationship to categorization, and says nothing about > contextual dependency at the level we're discussing. > > Sorry, but I'm pulling rank here. The field of linquistics and the > field of cognitive science intersect to a small degree here, but > linguistic inquiry is not the proper avenue from which to approach > this. > > You may have studied it in college; I hold several degrees and have > published numerous papers in the relevant field. The only reason I'm > doing contract work instead of working towards tenure at an Ivy is > because the money's better. > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 03:21:36PM -0500, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote: > > > > Sorry, Mark, but I cannot let your statement go uncorrected. I am not a > > linguist, but I majored in the subject in college. > > > > It most certainly is not a misconception that Linguistics is an > > inappropriate field to rely upon to address the theoretical > issues some are > > raising here. Indeed, I can think of no other field that has a > greater body > > of scholarship on the multiple levels of meaning in language. > (It may be, > > however, that most of us do not have the requisite level of expertise to > > access that material, which may not be a bad thing since our > task is much > > more limited than the broad generalizations presented by this > discussion.) > > > > > > Subject: [wg-c] A brief note on linguists... > > > > > > > > > I just realized a misconception is bubbling under the surface here... > > > linguists are, to a great extent, focused on intra-word effects, and > > > low-level language phenomena, and many work in the abstract, > > > concentrating on languages as systems. > > > > > > The phenomena we're discussing here are squarely in the realm of, and > > > speak to the core of, experimental cognitive psychology. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Mark C. Langston > > > mark@bitshift.org > > > Systems & Network Admin > > > San Jose, CA > > > > > -- > Mark C. Langston > mark@bitshift.org > Systems & Network Admin > San Jose, CA > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 14:02:30 -0800 From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] A brief note on linguists... As a one-time AI worker, I recognise Mark's arguments and agree with them. He is correct. It is not an arbitrary choice as cognitive science is the only scientific vehicle that deals with the subject. Then the choice is, do we deal with the subject rationally, or not, as you espouse. Choosing to NOT use the rigorous discipline is irrational, IMNSHO, and will lead us down more of the rat-holes that we have already seen. I have been amused by watching lay-folks discuss "meaning" and "memorability" whilst at the same time trying to remove any trace of "context" from either (very amusing). I also note that most of those stating those views have no direct experience in marketing (yet another group, very familiar with these concepts). Yet, they aim to speak authoritatively. I'm sorry, but a JD is NOT a PhD CS, nor is it an MBA, or vice verse (However, a high-tech MBA probably has good cross-training in both [JD and CS]). > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Rod > Dixon, J.D., LL.M. > Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 1:08 PM > To: Mark C. Langston > Cc: wg-c@dnso.org > Subject: RE: [wg-c] A brief note on linguists... > > > I certainly do not want to go down this road. Obviously, "memorability" is > not a linguisitic concept; nor are the other terms you use. Those are your > terms and you use them to suppport your argument. The issue, however, > concerns a disagreement over approaches to how "meaning" is > understood. You > prefer one discipline over another and that is fine. It is silly to debate > this in the context of the task before the WG-C. > > Rod > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mark C. Langston [mailto:skritch@home.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 3:52 PM > > To: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. > > Cc: wg-c@dnso.org > > Subject: Re: [wg-c] A brief note on linguists... > > > > > > Linguistics, in pure form, does not speak to memorability, says little > > about its relationship to categorization, and says nothing about > > contextual dependency at the level we're discussing. > > > > Sorry, but I'm pulling rank here. The field of linquistics and the > > field of cognitive science intersect to a small degree here, but > > linguistic inquiry is not the proper avenue from which to approach > > this. > > > > You may have studied it in college; I hold several degrees and have > > published numerous papers in the relevant field. The only reason I'm > > doing contract work instead of working towards tenure at an Ivy is > > because the money's better. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 03:21:36PM -0500, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote: > > > > > > Sorry, Mark, but I cannot let your statement go uncorrected. > I am not a > > > linguist, but I majored in the subject in college. > > > > > > It most certainly is not a misconception that Linguistics is an > > > inappropriate field to rely upon to address the theoretical > > issues some are > > > raising here. Indeed, I can think of no other field that has a > > greater body > > > of scholarship on the multiple levels of meaning in language. > > (It may be, > > > however, that most of us do not have the requisite level of > expertise to > > > access that material, which may not be a bad thing since our > > task is much > > > more limited than the broad generalizations presented by this > > discussion.) > > > > > > > > > Subject: [wg-c] A brief note on linguists... > > > > > > > > > > > > I just realized a misconception is bubbling under the > surface here... > > > > linguists are, to a great extent, focused on intra-word effects, and > > > > low-level language phenomena, and many work in the abstract, > > > > concentrating on languages as systems. > > > > > > > > The phenomena we're discussing here are squarely in the > realm of, and > > > > speak to the core of, experimental cognitive psychology. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Mark C. Langston > > > > mark@bitshift.org > > > > Systems & Network Admin > > > > San Jose, CA > > > > > > > > -- > > Mark C. Langston > > mark@bitshift.org > > Systems & Network Admin > > San Jose, CA > > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 17:40:06 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Specific Implementation Proposal: [Was:Re: nine principles fordomain names] - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >But enough is enough: either this WG is capable of making a >proposal for the implementation of new GTLDs, or it ain't. The >current discussion is not moving us toward the promised land. It's >time we actually began to dunk our toes in the River. Hey, I'm all for this. Forget what the TLDs are and remember that there are other companies with years more standing than the one you mentioned, and let's go. I won't be holding my breath. Christopher - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use Comment: Signed and Encrypted EMail preferred. Fnord. iQA/AwUBOLM6dskU7GoO9fgUEQJHnwCguPiJS+9w74xAJXUVFlcph2eqYygAoJOk cKRfeQJgb/IVrzrk7kG9lt5S =/7Pk - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 17:42:08 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Specific Implementation Proposal: [Was:Re: nine principles for domain names] - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Finally, since these 7 have proven to be contentious and were >decided upon several years ago when the Internet was a different >place, I >suggest that if and when the time is right to discuss which TLDs >should be chosen, a new set should be agreed upon, and these old, >contentious seven abandoned. Deciding what the TLDs are is, as you mentioned, a little premature, seeing as there are proposals where selection is part of the process, and there are proposals where selection is left to the registry. You presume too much. Christopher - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use Comment: Signed and Encrypted EMail preferred. Fnord. iQA/AwUBOLM68MkU7GoO9fgUEQKcPgCffHU57ZqZ94sAzXUcTL6DoRyl8ioAoIaT YilXHtnBQeF2UTOYc0w/i3Rm =ZuXC - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 21:12:16 -0800 (PST) From: Karl Auerbach Subject: Re: [wg-c] Specific Implementation Proposal: [Was:Re: nine principles for domain names] > Since there already exists a thoroughly-tested implementation of a > shared registration system If you are referring to the thing that is used to "share" the NSI operated registry for .com/.net/.edu, then may I suggest that it be used as a model of "how not to do it". From a technical perspective the current SRS design is underspecified (i.e. there are parts that are not documented), inadequate (e.g. it doesn't know time zones or IPv6), and it is arguably subject to manipulation by less-than scrupulous registrars. --karl-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 21:24:09 -0800 (PST) From: Karl Auerbach Subject: Getting started. Was Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names > so let's start with specific proposals. Here's my six suggestions. .u1z .k3h .z5b .b6f .j7k .h9q I believe that these are culturally neutral and carry no intrinsic "charter" requirements over which any registry, registrar, or ICANN need be a policeman. The leave to registry and its registrars, if any, the entire freedom to build a brand and solicit registrants from all corners. (The joy of the knowledge that a brand has been successfully created to be undiluted by any hint that such creation might have been helped along by the DNSO or ICANN.) --karl-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:48:03 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] Cairo meeting Expressions of interest in a WG-C meeting in Cairo have been trickling in, enough of them that I think it makes sense actually to have a meeting. So I'll try to schedule one, probably (following our Los Angeles tradition) on Wednesday at 7 am, before the GA meeting. Jon Jonathan Weinberg co-chair, WG-C weinberg@msen.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:24:54 +0100 From: "Philip Sheppard" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names The tired set of domain names .firm .shop .web .arts .rec .info .nom might indeed make an interesting test-bed for the principles. However, we envisage a system whereby the applicant registry proposes a gTLD and explains what they envisage for that gTLD. The registry describes the market they seek to attract. They describe the value added they are proposing for the DNS. Such description should be concise and unburdensome for the registry. It would also be practical for the applicant registry to demonstrate how its putative gTLD complies with the principles. The principles are not designed to test a name per se. Philip ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:43:07 +0100 From: Edler & Nebel Softwareentwicklung Subject: [wg-c] Request .eur or .euro Ladies and Gentlemen! We would like to introduce ourselves as a non-governmental work group concerned with the presentation and marketing of the commercial and cultural contents of the internet within the European Union. Being the representatives of this particular group, we would like to write to you with the following request: We came to the conclusion that it would be extremely helpful to have a gTLD '.eur' or '.euro' in order to be able to exploit the possibilities of the internet to it's maximum extent. Let us explain our general ideas and concepts: We would set up a network of the European companies and organisations in dot eur (there's already high demand, as you would expect). Every participant would be encouraged to present all contents in both English and native language, as most companies already do that are aware of a common Europe. Our vision would be a virtual market where on the one hand the European Union is presented as an unity but on the other hand, every state has it's own sites, all available under dot eur with features like search engines and links to the former ccTLD locations. Any responses on the probability as to have such a top level domain created, would be very much appreciated. If you and ICANN would support this request and create the TLD, a new company would be started for the administration and maintenance of the registry. Yours faithfully Alexander Edler Edler & Nebel Softwareentwicklung Puntigamerstraße 4, 8041 Graz-Liebenau AUSTRIA - EUROPE Tel.: +43 316 425661 Fax: +43 316 425751 en-software@edler.at ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #17 *************************