Re: [ga] gTLDs and the heretofore flawed ICANN paradigm

[sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Increased complexity will only serve to break down the elegance,
simplicity and indefeasibility of the namespace, which will result in an
unwieldy mess of possible points of failure that will not serve in
anyone's interest except those who have shortsighted aims.

As for trademark law and the internet, let me just briefly state that the
problem (if problem it is), lies in the heretofore application of
trademark law to the internet medium and NOT in some shortcoming of the
namespace construct.

My question is this: If truly all of the stakeholders in the present and
future Internet are to be sitting at the table where policies of such
ontological import are being fashioned; where is the representation for
the INDIVIDUAL interest?  After all, if groups of individuals (i.e.
corporations, associations and governments) have an interest and stake in
the proceedings, then what about their component individual parts?


> Re:  what exactly are the "naming needs not adequately
> met by
> existing names"?
>
> If we were forced to work within a strict and
> unmutable taxonomy, then congestion within a
> particular namespace could become a problem that
> creates a naming need.  When businesses found it
> difficult to obtain a "good" .com name, we needed to
> expand that space by accretion (adding other
> commercial namespaces such as .biz).  In time we may
> need to add .inc or .shop etc.
>
> I think that Milton is arguing that a strict taxonomy
> will not necessarily work, and that circumstances will
> arise often enough that require a deviation from a
> precise taxonomy so that it isn't worth it in the long
> run to pursue such a categorization scheme.
>
> That's why I tend to prefer a concept that is closer
> to the zoning laws that one sees in municipalities.
> Just as we can zone an area for pornographic
> businesses, and another area for retail businesses and
> yet another for wholesale businesses, and even zone
> for sectors (such as a garment district in a city), we
> should be able to think in terms of zones within a
> taxonomic structure.
>
> As such, a commercial zone could include several TLDs
> ranging from .boutique to .LLC while a non-commercial
> zone could include a non-profit sector (.npo) or
> charities (.charity) as well as the other entities
> that inhabit .org.
>
>
>
> --- sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> Danny Younger wrote:
>>
>> > The taxonomic approach is not a real option. Over
>> 40
>> > million legacy registrations, more than half of
>> them
>> > in one TLD, make it impossible at this stage of
>> the
>> > DNS?s development to ?rationalize? the name space
>> by
>> > promulgating a classificatory TLD scheme. The name
>> > space can only evolve through accretion; i.e., by
>> the
>> > gradual addition of new TLDs that meet naming
>> needs
>> > not adequately met by existing names. Taxonomies
>> and
>> > organized naming structures can and do exist
>> within
>> > TLDs (as well as in portals, search engines,
>> private
>> > keyword spaces, and digital libraries). But the
>> idea
>> > of a global DNS taxonomy that divides the entire
>> > Internet up into neat little cubbyholes once and
>> for
>> > all is an impossibility.
>>
>> This requires clarification as it does not make any
>> sense to me.  If the
>> issue is that the "taxonomic approach is not a real
>> option" then what
>> exactly are the "naming needs not adequately met by
>> existing names"?
>>
>> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>