Received: from TROUSER (trouser.isomedia.com [207.149.220.251]) by isomedia.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA08184 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 14:56:05 -0700 From: "Allan Bennett" To: Subject: .us domains Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 14:56:20 -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 Importance: Normal After reading everyone's comments on TM law and property why not set up a system where: > The Stone Corporation, which has been making monuments for 40 years Can register stone.monuments.us > The Stone Family, which has been doing business as Stone Hardware for > 100 years? Can register stone.hardware.us Jeff Stone can register stone.surname.us And Stone LLC which makes yet to be developed "XYZPDQ". Can register stone.xyzpdq.us (if xyzpdq is not a trademark) and/or xyzpdq.invention.us 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. -Allan . Received: by spitfire.law.miami.edu (Postfix, from userid 1113) id 16152329812; Wed, 19 May 1999 21:55:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spitfire.law.miami.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E81C32A80A; Wed, 19 May 1999 21:55:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 21:55:55 -0400 (EDT) From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" Reply-To: Michael Froomkin To: Allan Bennett Cc: us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov Subject: Re: .us domains In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In some countries, individuals get ONLY the 4th level. The third level cannot be registered. So Jeff stone gets jeff.stone.per.us and the next jeff stone must be content with jeff1.stone.per.us or the like, but no one is allowed to register a 3rd level surname. Fairer. I'd also like to point out that the Canadian government has just published rules for the .ca domain, and these are considered by many to be state- of-the-art On Wed, 19 May 1999, Allan Bennett wrote: > > Jeff Stone can register stone.surname.us > -- A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin@law.tm U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm --> It's hot here. <-- . Received: (qmail 1772 invoked by uid 524); 20 May 1999 03:20:44 -0000 Date: 20 May 1999 03:20:44 -0000 Message-ID: <19990520032044.1771.qmail@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> From: "JZP" To: us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov Subject: Re: .us domains In-Reply-To: [Please pardon any terrible typos. Slow link today, and I'm typing ahead about a paragraph at a time.] > After reading everyone's comments on TM law and property why not set up a > system where: [snip] > > The Stone Family, which has been doing business as Stone Hardware for > > 100 years? > > Can register stone.hardware.us [snip] > And Stone LLC which makes yet to be developed "XYZPDQ". Can register > stone.xyzpdq.us (if xyzpdq is not a trademark) and/or xyzpdq.invention.us [snip] 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 . Received: from iciiu.org (slip-ppp-1-195.perfekt.net [205.230.176.195]) by perfekt.perfekt.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA11924; Wed, 19 May 1999 23:30:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <374380DD.DA00E3BB@iciiu.org> Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 23:26:21 -0400 From: Michael Sondow X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [fr] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Froomkin CC: Allan Bennett , us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov Subject: Re: .us domains References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by perfekt.perfekt.net id XAA11924 Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law a =E9crit: > I'd also like to point out that the Canadian government has just publis= hed > rules for the .ca domain, and these are considered by many to be state- > of-the-art Information and some discussion on the reorganization of .CA was posted some time ago on the IFWP and other lists. I and a few others attempted in vain to draw comparisons between the CDNCC plan (http://www.canarie.ca/cdncc/finalreport.html) and CIRA bylaws (http://www.canarie.ca/cdncc/BYLAWV71.html), and ICANN. The work of the CDNCC is even more a propos of the .US reorganization, although it's hard to imagine the USG, or what passes here for the Internet community, designing a registrar, like that of the Canadians, whose members are the domain name registrants. We don't see the Internet as a service to users, do we? If we did, there wouldn't be all this trouble over the NewCo and ICANN. .