Received: from [206.5.17.2] by exchange.netmagic.com (NTMail 3.03.0018/1.acsd) with ESMTP id va013203 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 07:44:39 -0400 Message-Id: <4.2.0.37.19990520070651.00aa72e0@mail.netmagic.com> X-Sender: amr@mail.netmagic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.37 (Beta) Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 07:44:40 -0400 To: "JZP" ,us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov From: "A.M. Rutkowski" Subject: Re: .us domains In-Reply-To: <19990520032044.1771.qmail@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_317098062==_.ALT" --=====================_317098062==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Joe, >believes they simply MUST have both "stone.hardware.us" and >"stone.inventions.us"... and while they're at it, they're contemplating >getting into the network business, so they need "stone.network.us", etc and >you have the .COM/.NET/.ORG problem all over again. .... >a country renting its ISO CC to the world (.TO), but I have many arguments >against this in a large-population with a ... sense of territory (.US). Your proposal to put in place a few categories seems wise - especially for sectors like post.us and the existing geographical construct. However, it seems unavoidable that the rest would be a self-defining zone. You seem to diminish self-defining DNS zones by describing them as a problem without indicating what those problems are. Some of the virtues of self-defining space are: 1) it comports with the purpose of the Internet name system since it was first proposed by Peggy Karp in 1971, 2) Users themselves get to construct the names they need, 3) It creates an almost infinite set of options, 4) It eliminates bureaucracy, government involvement, committees, and all similar overhead, 5) It establishes an inexpensive, fast, business-oriented approach to providing the related services, 6) It fuels ECommerce and maximizes free expression, 7) It can coexist with some structured ontologies such the existing geographical one, as well as specialized ones such as post.us 8) It minimizes litigation over the basis on which any control is being done. These are all pretty compelling attributes, particularly the last. In the final analysis, there is no basis for anyone controlling this kind of service, so the litigation liabilities are rather high. --tony --=====================_317098062==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Joe,

believes they simply MUST have both "stone.hardware.us" and
"stone.inventions.us"... and while they're at it, they're contemplating
getting into the network business, so they need "stone.network.us", etc and
you have the .COM/.NET/.ORG problem all over again.
...
a country renting its ISO CC to the world (.TO), but I have many arguments
against this in a large-population with a ... sense of territory (.US).

Your proposal to put in place a few categories seems
wise - especially for sectors like post.us and the
existing geographical construct.  However, it seems
unavoidable that the rest would be a self-defining
zone.

You seem to diminish self-defining DNS zones by describing
them as a problem without indicating what those problems are.
Some of the virtues of self-defining space are:

1) it comports with the purpose of the Internet name
   system since it was first proposed by Peggy Karp in
   1971,
2) Users themselves get to construct the names they need,
3) It creates an almost infinite set of options,
4) It eliminates bureaucracy, government involvement,
   committees, and all similar overhead,
5) It establishes an inexpensive, fast, business-oriented
   approach to providing the related services,
6) It fuels ECommerce and maximizes free expression,
7) It can coexist with some structured ontologies such
   the existing geographical one, as well as specialized
   ones such as post.us
8) It minimizes litigation over the basis on which any
   control is being done.

These are all pretty compelling attributes, particularly the
last.   In the final analysis, there is no basis for anyone
controlling this kind of service, so the litigation liabilities
are rather high.




--tony --=====================_317098062==_.ALT-- . Received: (qmail 11064 invoked by uid 524); 20 May 1999 14:18:55 -0000 Date: 20 May 1999 14:18:55 -0000 Message-ID: <19990520141855.11063.qmail@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> From: "JZP" To: us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov Subject: Re: .us domains In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.37.19990520070651.00aa72e0@mail.netmagic.com> First, I want to say that the thumbnail sketch I provided last night was rather off the cuff to try and address a balance between the issues presented by various folks. If anyone is interested in spinning off and working with me to make it a real, full-fledged proposal to formally present to ISI, the DoC, et al, drop me a line. [snip] > Your proposal to put in place a few categories seems > wise - especially for sectors like post.us and the > existing geographical construct. However, it seems > unavoidable that the rest would be a self-defining > zone. Perhaps I was unclear; the "self-defining" piece is fulfilled by the suggested "[...] open framework for delegate-wannabees to propose -to the community- new categories they would like to manage." To expand on this, I mean that members of the community who wished to define their own little slice of US at the second level would have to be willing to take the delegation of the zone and act as registrars for that zone. It sounds to me like you desire a flat, unmanaged namespace; that could be facilitated by having a SLD like "OPEN.US" or "ANON.US". I may be wrong; please share your definition of "self-defining zones" and at what level you wish them to be. If I'm not wrong, how do you propose to manage the unmanaged? That is, by what mechanism - would you prevent all the "good names" from being taken and squatted? - would you make authoritative DNS work? - would you run a directory service -if at all- for the zone [even a primative WHOIS-based one]? ....etc [these just off the top of my head]. > You seem to diminish self-defining DNS zones by describing > them as a problem without indicating what those problems are. My first paragraph pointed to the many problems with COM/NET/ORG and bundled them into one. Do we really need to rehash the issues here, or are you just seeking my interpretation of that set of problems? Secondly, the lessons of other flat/open naming spaces should be heeded here. The alt.* newsgroup heirarchy, on managed sites, is actually useful, as the management is little more than concensus in a discussion group. On unmanaged sites, there are excessively redundant groups, such that one does not have a single place to discuss a topic, let alone the plethora of joke groups, insult groups, etc. The namespace is essentially useless at such sites. Thirdly, there is the lesson in the management of growth learned from the history of IP address allocations. The 192/8 and 198/8 networks are commonly known as "the swamp" or even "the toxic waste dump" in networking community, because in the days prior to regional heirarchical addressing, Classles addressing [CIDR], and the associated _added_on_ management systems, addresses were allocated in a rather arbitrary fashion, leading to extreme waste as well as causing a crisis of restrained resources. This resources in question were previously not considered to be an issue or even considered in relation to address allocation. Were growth management not applied in a rather draconian fashion, the internet would not be functioning at this moment; the lesson to take from this is to build growth management *into* any allocation, delegation, name/numberspace from the start. I would submit that there are limitations none of us will be able to forsee in unmanaged growth in domain space. > Some of the virtues of self-defining space are: > 1) it comports with the purpose of the Internet name > system since it was first proposed by Peggy Karp in > 1971, ....but a scalable naming system as well the migration to it wasn't until 86-87, if I recall correctly. Didn't P Karp also write the original MITRE docs 'hardcoding' standardized names? > 2) Users themselves get to construct the names they need, Please definie users, and this need? Do all users "need" static IP addresses? I was pleased to see you avoided the "directory services" issues, but I think thats the real thought process underlying this "need" if you're describing every end user. Provided the base set of SLDs are sane, and maybe even registrars come out of the woodwork at the proposal stage and agree to run some of them, I don't see where my proposed outline falls flat on allowing domain-registering users (eg, current userspace of COM/NET/ORG, US, etc) to "construct the names they need". > 3) It creates an almost infinite set of options, As the COM/NET/ORG problem set shows, there are only so many "desirable" options IFF one is overloading the DNS to also be a directory service. > 4) It eliminates bureaucracy, government involvement, > committees, and all similar overhead, Who runs the name servers, directory services, arbitrates disputes, validates any data? The elimination of any structure or management is bluntly the elimination of usefulness to names. I'd personally rather remember IP addresses than THIS-IS-LONG-SO-I-CAN-GET-JOE-IN-IT.US; what about you? > 5) It establishes an inexpensive, fast, business-oriented > approach to providing the related services, Considering the number of companies chomping at the bit to try and get a slice of the InterNIC registrar/registry split, I sincerely doubt that there would be any lack of sponsor registries for desirable US SLDs. This translates into "inexpensive" [supposedly, via competition], "fast" [again, look at the pile of hungry companies waiting on the list at http://www.icann.org/icann-pr21apr99.htm]. As far as "business-oriented", see the point below. > 6) It fuels ECommerce and maximizes free expression, See my email to the list "Management is the issue", 18 May 1999. Sorry, but this mailing list doesn't provide you a copy of your own message, and I hadn't been aware of that at the time, so i cannot quote you a message-ID. If you need a copy, grab it from the list archives [I presume this list server has an archiving fucntion - any DoC comment? if there is no function, drop me a line but PLEASE look first!]. To sum up, the DNS is a critical component of the existing infrastructure that makes the internet run and has led to the innovations we have today. It must be allowed to remain an infrastructure component and not be hit into the inappropriate role of directory service. > 7) It can coexist with some structured ontologies such > the existing geographical one, as well as specialized > ones such as post.us See previous question; would you have no qualms about this flat namespace (if that is what you are advoicating) simply living at the 3rd level, as allowed in my proposal? > 8) It minimizes litigation over the basis on which any > control is being done. My proposal moved the potential litigation point away from one central source, to those who "run" the SLDs. In a flat namespace, when Veronica "self-selects" JOE-IS-A-JERK.US, where do I and other Joe's go to resolve the dispute? While I appreciate the desire to not makle a registry 'responsible' (in a legal sense) for what is registered under it, your suggestion will no doubt make it *harder* for people to resolve disputes without having that 'higher authority of appeal'. If the answer is "take it to the courts", congratulations, you have added work to an already overburdened, rushed [and therefore unjust] system. Under my proposal, if a company wished to run a registry for "PARODY.US" or "SATIRE.US", the intent would be clear and hopefully ease those litigation issues. The solution is similar for trade or service marks; move the problem onto the heads of people that wish to run registries. > In the final analysis, there is no basis for anyone > controlling this kind of service, so the litigation liabilities > are rather high. Your "final analysis" is false in the face of facts and history. IF there is to be any namespace THEN it must be managed ELSE it becomes useless. History, human nature, and technical fact regarding this very important element of the Internet infrastructure supply ambple arguments -some of which I have illustrated- to support this. Unfortunately, I have a busy workday, so direct quesries to me will probably go unanswered. I do hope there is ample fuel here for a lively discussion, and look forward to catching up tonight. Joe http://www.gweep.net/~crimson/pgp.txt crimson@sidehack.gweep.net * jprovo@gnu.ai.mit.edu * jzp@rsuc.gweep.net Disclaimer: "I'm the only one foolish enough to claim these opinions." RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / AAC / FnB / Usenix / SAGE . Received: from TROUSER (trouser.isomedia.com [207.149.220.251]) by isomedia.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA11949 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 12:21:08 -0700 From: "Allan Bennett" To: Subject: RE: .us domains Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 12:21:23 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 In-Reply-To: <19990520032044.1771.qmail@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> Importance: Normal I disagree with the idea a predefining zones and new zones managed by "delegate-wannabees". With an open system is see more choices. Stone decides to get into networking. So will they register: stone.network.us stone.networks.us stone.networking.us stone.net.us stone.nets.us stone.thenetwork.us stone.anetwork.us stone.ethernet.us stone.cat6.us stone.networksolutions.us(hehe) I can add more but you get the point. Let the stone company register as many names as they feel they need... domains aren't free. To make sure there is a cost have a requirement that all contact info must be current. Allan -----Original Message----- From: JZP [mailto:crimson@sidehack.sat.gweep.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 1999 8:21 PM To: us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov Subject: Re: .us domains [Please pardon any terrible typos. Slow link today, and I'm typing ahead about a paragraph at a time.] This only "works" if you require an organization/person to be limited to one domain - otherwise you get the "innovative hardware store" that believes they simply MUST have both "stone.hardware.us" and "stone.inventions.us"... and while they're at it, they're contemplating getting into the network business, so they need "stone.network.us", etc and you have the .COM/.NET/.ORG problem all over again. And -of course- if you make a rule that there can only be one domain per entity, you get into the nasty game of defining entities (names? postal addresses? incorporated companies?) and -as usual- the company with the most money, that can afford to incorporate as many trivial holding companies as they desire, will snatch up all the "good" names. Not to mention that the highly vocal contingent that will undoubtable cry "restrain of trade" or "preferential treatment" or some other complaint. Actually, no matter what plan gets created, there will be people unsatisfied. That needs to be understood by everyone involved in the process... > The point is any second level domain could not be controlled, only third > level. And by not setting any predefined second level, choice of third level > domain name should be fair and limitless. That really only moves the problem further up the tree. "Further up" [your definition of how far up will vary] is where the problem _belongs_, but the placement doesn't resolve the problem. Should the existing geopolitical structure be "frozen" when a new plan comes out, or remain in parallel? I'd argue in parallel, as we'll undoubtably see continued use in the 'managed' section (not to mention the FNC and NSF needing to be involved WRT the k12..us migration, etc). Should there be a categorization structure laid out by committee (ie, in this forum)? I'd argue that we'd probably make something acceptable to the community at present, but would become outdated as the community changed, a la RFC1480. Should there be no formt at all, first-come, first served in a flat and unmanaged namespace? That may work in a small population (.CA) or in a country renting its ISO CC to the world (.TO), but I have many arguments against this in a large-population with a ... sense of territory (.US). I'd propose a structure be put in place with a few general categories, delegated to the management of (DoC/ISI/their delegates), and leaving an open framework for delegate-wannabees to propose -to the community- new categories they would like to manage. This - avoids design-by-committe or -in-a-vacuum for all but an obligatory starter-set of subdomains - avoids a total mess - delegates the 'meaning policing' problem down to the level of the subset of the community that has a _vested_interest_ in the meaning of the zone they manage - allows the marketplace of ideas (whatever committee or consortium or agency or public process reviewed new zone proposals) to sort out good and bad categories - allows the 'consumer market' to select between new zones managed by profit motive (i would assume some companies would wish to propose new categories in which they see a potential profit), the basic 'starter-set' zones managed by the govt/DoC/ISI/a consortium, and new zones managed by other motives (non-profits, educational, etc). This prevents putting commerce above research as well as putting research above commerce, striking a balance between them and other factors. - potentially sidesteps legal/trademark issues by putting the onus on the delegatees? Thoughts? This is a strawman - shred away... Joe http://www.gweep.net/~crimson/pgp.txt crimson@sidehack.gweep.net * jprovo@gnu.ai.mit.edu * jzp@rsuc.gweep.net Disclaimer: "I'm the only one foolish enough to claim these opinions." RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / AAC / FnB / Usenix / SAGE .