[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]
[process2-comments] RFC-1
To: | process.mail@wipo.int | |
Subject: | [process2-comments] RFC-1 | |
From: | magnus@alum.mit.edu | |
Date: | Sat, 12 Aug 2000 04:45:03 +0200 |
Name: Daniel Risacher I assert that the idea of domain name resolution includes a false premise: that there is a conflict between internet hostnames and other names. It has long been recognized in the software industry that there is such a thing as a "namespace"; a context in which names have meaning. Without a namespace, a name has no meaning. Take for example, the name "Xanadu". This name is a film starring Olivia Newton John. It's the name of a fictional place in a Coleridge poem. It's the name of a company. It's the name of a web renovation project. It may have several more meanings in other contexts. These names exist in different namespaces, and do not conflict. The internet domain name system is a system that assigns names to computers. It's purpose is to provide a consistent mechanism for identifying computers by unique, memorable names. By design, it provides a more-or-less unique mapping between names and numbers. By historical policy, this has been done on a first-come-first-serve basis for the most popular domains (.com, .net, .org). This policy is well understood by internet users. Trying to change the semantics of domain names retroactively introduces more tension and confusion than abiding by the first-come-first-serve process. As I understand trademarks, (and how I believe they should operate) a trademark only is protection against infringement in a particular area. So the "Ford Foundation" has no conflict with the "Ford Motor Company". By definition, internet domain names are in a well-defined area (internet hosts), and, by design, they don't conflict with each other. Therefore, there is not an underlying naming conflict. Furthermore, the internet host namespace is already heirarchical, with distict name policies for different TLDs, such as the ".int" that WIPO uses. If it is strictly necessary to have a namespace regulated by the United Nations, I suggest that a new TLD be created with that policy, rather than having the UN co-opt an existing namespace with existing policies. Daniel Risacher United States of America |
- Prev by Date: [process2-comments] RFC-1
- Next by Date: [process2-comments] RFC-1
- Index(es):