North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: what problem are we solving? (was Re: ICANN opens up Pandora'sBox
> 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? ... JG -- 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.