Paul A Vixie
paul at vix.com
Wed Apr 24 20:44:05 UTC 1996
> > [...] The YMBK proposal from the second NSF workshop will
> > almost certainly be the way of the future, and we will see a
> > lot more TLD's and hopefully no one of them will ever be as
> > ugly as .COM is now.
> It seems to me that the problem which pushes in the direction of
> lots of more TLDs is fairly US-specific, as the vast majority of
> registrants in the COM domain are US companies. Why, then, do
> you want to pollute the name space used for naming the national
> domain names with what is essentially a US-originating problem?
If I had my way, we would just have country code TLD's and .INT, and
.INT would be restricted as it is now do international treaty orgs.
However, the market speaks loudly and those of us who do not listen
to it will find ourselves sidelined. I've never been given permission
to speak for the IANA, but I'd guess that he sees lots of TLD's as the
best way to enable competition among name providers on a level playing
field with .COM. (Recall "dot envy" wherein someone will prefer something
like MEANINGLESS.COM to MEANINGFUL.something.deeper.)
> Is there someone who thinks that trademark problems will be any
> less of a concern by creating lots of new TLDs -- won't a trade-
> mark owner be equally interested in protecting his rights in all
> the new TLDs, especially if the new TLDs are "generic"?
My original proposal was to create enough (tens of thousands) of TLD's such
that this sort of small minded protectionist idiocy would be impractical.
The IANA did not see things my way on this point, and so I suspect that the
larger companies headed by people with the smaller craniums will all decide
to register in every TLD. But this will not be a "right" (there are none)
and they will have to (a) compete to be "first" and (b) pay for the privilege
of their multiplicity. The only downside is that there's no way to make them
pay for the _actual_ costs they are imposing on all Internet users, those
being confusion, uncertainty, and anger at having 999 things that all mean
the same thing except for the 1 thing that looks the same and means something
More information about the NANOG