RE: Suggestions (Re: [wg-c] Schwimmer Post From Last Week )

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

I think that we missed each other. I was talking about the TLDs themselves,
not their customers.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark C. Langston [mailto:skritch@home.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 1999 9:46 AM
> To: wg-c@dnso.org
> Cc: rmeyer@mhsc.com; 'Martin B. Schwimmer'
> Subject: Re: Suggestions (Re: [wg-c] Schwimmer Post From Last Week )
>
>
>
> On 21 December 1999, "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >> While I still think the idea of chartered TLDs is a viable
> >> one, I'd like
> >> to make one suggestion:  For those groups that have specific TLDs
> >> allocated for them, they may not cross-register their SLD
> in another
> >> TLD.
> >
> >I think that this should be up to the TLD registry. Market
> forces will sort
> >out the best policies here.
> >
> >I also think that the registrant is better able to market a
> TLD according to
> >their own vision.
> >
> >Personally, I can market/develop/deploy my own concepts MUCH
> better than I
> >can an imposed concept. Moreover, my own concepts have my
> personal buy-in. I
> >would wager that this is generally true, for most folks.
> >
> >A TLD must be developed as part of a market development
> process or it just
> >doesn't work. The reason CNO worked is because the
> definition is wide-open
> >and NSI could do anything they wanted with a general charter
> and the fact
> >that there was no alternative.
>
> Domain names are not the sole purview of commercial interests.  Until
> that's reflected in policy, many people will continue to be upset.
>
>
> >
> >Most marketers would roll on the floor laughing at the thought that a
> >handful of technical weenies would even attempt to define
> their markets for
> >them. Then they would simply walk away. If they did do it,
> there wouldn't be
> >enough buy-in, by the marketers, for them to do a decent
> job. If you've ever
> >seen those guys in action then you know what I'm talking
> about. If you
> >haven't, then you haven't a clue. Jazz, Buzz, whatever ...
> it ain't there
> >when it's somebody else' schtick. This is one place where
> practice overcomes
> >theory.
> >
> >
> Let them walk away.  Are they going to revert to using raw IPs?  I
> have no trouble doing so;  they might.
>
> I don't see why the suggestion that commercial interests refrain from
> registering their domain names in TLDs other than those allocated
> specifically for their purposes would upset anyone.  Heck, the major
> argument right now is one of "customer confusion".  If the customer
> knows there's an entire TLD (e.g., .com) where one may find commercial
> domains, the confusion disappears.  There's no confusion over whether
> accredited institutions of higher learning are in .org or .com (let's
> not bring up U. of Phoenix; they're an outlier and anomalous).  When I
> go to a .edu domain, I'm pretty sure I'm getting what I'm looking for.
>
> The entire "let's register our company in every single TLD
> and have them
> all point to our e-commerce site" thing is getting close to
> the practice
> of wanting to tag every flat surface one finds with grafitti.  We need
> to come up with a DNS equivalent of "Post No Bills" before we
> march ahead
> and create 6-10 new .com spaces.
>
> I'm all for expanding the namespace, but if the end result would be
> equivalent to just doing a zone transfer on .com and
> relabelling the TLD,
> count me out.  There's no point then.  It buys the end-user
> nothing, it
> costs the TM and IP folks more to police, it costs the companies more
> for registration and maintenance.
>
> When we expand the namespace (and it WILL happen, eventually.  There
> is NO stopping this, only delaying), the only workable solution is one
> in which everyone (or at least the majority) benefits.  Current
> practices would indicate the following would happen if we create 6-10
> new, non-chartered, free-for-all TLDs:
>
> 1)  Every person who knows about it beforehand will be hunting up
>     registration scripts, and will make a huge land-grab as soon as
>     the new TLDs go live,
>
> 2)  Mark holders will do the same, in every domain,
> essentially duplicating
>     .com, and making up for slip-ups and oversights they committed in
>     .com originally,
>
> 3)  TM and IP interests will complain that their policing costs just
>     increased n-fold,
>
> 4)  The entire concept of a TLD will be that much further diluted --
>     as long as people spend time, money, and effort
> registering the same
>     SLDs in every TLD they can, the point of the TLD becomes
> meaningless.
>     The TLD should be a further unique label.  If we create a world in
>     which porsche.* exists (and we're rapidly approaching
> that precipice,
>     folks), then we may as well abolish the entire concept of
> TLDs, and
>     just use SLDs as TLDs.  Since so many here are concerned with
>     "consumer confusion", just think what it means to them
> when they can
>     ascertain no difference whatsoever among TLDs.
>
> 5)  Anyone wishing to purchase a domain name will be faced
> with exactly
>     the same situation they are currently faced with:  a
> severely depleted
>     namespace.  We're currently witnessing a rush to take advantage of
>     the "new" label length.  I've seen domains as recently as
> yesterday
>     that were just dictionary words with singly- or multiply-repeated
>     vowels.  There's a huge rush to register these, according to some
>     sources, and that's just from an announcement that there's a "new"
>     doman name length limit.  Extending this behavior into a future
>     where we announce the existence of new free-for-all TLDs isn't
>     unreasonable.
>
> The CNO has grown gradually over the years;  where we now stand, there
> are hundreds and thousands of people scooping up any label they can,
> for various reasons.  However, the namespace was pretty much depleted
> when they got there.  It's foolish to think that these people won't be
> crushing people against the gates to buy up every single name they
> can generate when the new TLDs are launched.  If we don't have some
> controls in place, you're going to see a spate of lawsuits unlike any
> ever before witnessed.  The TM and IP interests would like
> those controls
> to be pre-emptive exclusion of their marks;  I happen to think that
> a reasoned set of tightly-controlled chartered TLDs would be a better
> solution.
>
> I also believe that any "free-for-all" TLD can go ahead and
> be written
> off, because it will either be full of .com duplicates owned by the
> mark owners, or full of .com duplicates owned by bad-faith
> "squatters".
> Too many people are too high from the fumes of DNS cash to make me
> believe any other way.
>
> --
> Mark C. Langston
> mark@bitshift.org
> Systems Admin
> San Jose, CA
>
>
>