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

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

> 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

2

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.

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.

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

3

Peter Beckman wrote:

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.