what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora'sBox
jgreco at ns.sol.net
Mon Jun 30 20:23:21 CDT 2008
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Joe Greco 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.
That's probably a reasonable reason to do a modest amount of research on
registrants. Of course, the idea that a registrar has any duty other than
to take money and "make it so" is heretical, I know.
> > 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 actually like to have seen a continued evolution of DNS towards
something slightly more useful. Implementation as a bookmark in a browser
would not make any sense; the Internet is not just the World Wide Web.
The search feature within a resolver is one reasonable starting point for
considering how you might go about this sort of thing, but I expect that
the solution might not really resemble anything currently existing.
> > 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.
It may go that way, but should we let it do so without comment?
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
More information about the NANOG