Re: [wg-c] why not name.space style?

[megacz@cmu.edu]

> Sure, we can separate authority over a name from physical hosting of
> the name subtree

That's already the case -- I can register ****.com through many
different registrars. Put a different way, just because a name is
*.com tells you NOTHING about who it was registered through. The
complexity is already there.

> Allowing arbitrary two-level domain names to be registered using the
> existing system would be equivalent to having all those names as TLDs

> The requirement that all registrations must be two levels deep is
> meaningless and achieves nothing on any meaningful level except requiring
> a dot somewhere in the middle of the name you register ;)

True, mathematically, the two-level registration requirement is
equivalent to requiring the presence of a dot. However, as somebody
else wisely stated, DNS is 10% technical problems and 90% political
problems.

The whole point is that the human brain percieves a dot as a
word-separater, thus requiring all registrations to be two words
long. Thus one-word-trademark holders are forced to tack on an extra
word to their trademark (hence making it specific

Simply put, requiring two-word domain names eliminates the current
stigma against companies that choose to register a domain name
including not just their trade name, but their industry as well.

> you would have registrations of www.apple and mail.apple and buy.apple,

This is an excellent point. We intended the two-word requirement to
allow the first word to be the trademark and the second to be the
industry. It is entirely possible (as you point out) for a company to
register some nonsense word in front of their company name.

I would suggest that we add the requirement that the TLD under which
an entity registers CAN NOT be a trademark of the company, and
furthermore, the company must disclaim all trademark interests in that
word. Hence, if I register apple.computers, I affirm that the word
"computers" by itself is not a trademark of mine.

> The hierarchical authority structure should not be blithely thrown
> away.

No problem. You can keep it -- just make an exception for the TLD and
SLD. In other words, w.x.y.z first looks up y.z in the root server,
finds the authoritative server for y.z, asks for x.y.z from that, and
w.x.y.z from that.

> What technical alternative are you proposing to allow arbitrary numbers of
> TLDs or SLD/TLD combos (it makes no difference technically except for the
> period that must be in the middle ;), and allow registrars and top level
> name servers to compete (or be compensated based on a fair regulatory
> structure)?

Uh, leave it exactly as it is, except that you can register x.y for
any value of x and any value of y, possibly subject to the
abovementioned trademark restriction, and the additional restriction
that y is not a gTLD (.com, .edu, etc...)

> If you don't mean to allow arbitrary sld.tld names to be registered when
> either sld or tld would be a contested trademark

Trademarks are specific to industries. Apple owns "apple" within the
context of computers. They have no claim on apple.wastemanagment. With
this system, the registrars are taken out of the trademark feud -- and
it's left up to the courts (where it belongs). If the TLD and SLD
*TOGETHER* form a trademark (ie apple.computers), then the courts will
injunct against the registration. The ambiguity of apple.com is
eliminated.

  - aj

-- 
"Nobody has any 'Rights'. We are entitled only to Liberties"
Adam Megacz <megacz@cmu.edu> -- for current phone/postal, see
http://www.cmu.edu/cgi-bin/finger?q=megacz@andrew.cmu.edu