nanog mailing list archives
RE: new.net
From: "Mike Batchelor" <mikebat () tmcs net>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:59:09 -0800
I agree. Such a policy would only serve to legitimize trademark infringement. Also, since multiple entities can, and often do, have identical trademarks in different business classes, there will still be contention for even such .tm domains. If one considers the structure of name useage, from local assumed names to registered trademarks by international organizations, the only logical conclusion is to move everything to the regional domain structure and totally do away with .com .net .org .edu and even .gov! It would seem to be the only structure compatible with all scales of naming requirements and should make domain related trademark issues a bit cleaner.
I'm partial to expanding the list of generic TLDs with a large number of short, meaningless strings, thereby allowing many identical 2nd level domains to exist while at the same time creating a daunting task for the all-your-name-are-belong-to-us crowd of squatters, lawyers and marketers. I suggest the set of A0, A1, A2 ... Z7, Z8, Z9 ... 0A, 1A, 2A ... 7Z, 8Z, 9Z. This assumes that the ISO will never issue a country code containing a digit - I don't know if that is the case. When registering a 2nd level domain, you wouldn't get to pick the top level - the registry would pick one at random for you. This would give us 520 gTLDs. Expand it to one letter and two digits for 5200. Some combinations of A-F and 0-9 would need to be excluded in order to avoid TLDs that are hex numerals, which might confuse some resolver libraries. Only purpose-specific top levels like .museum would be represented by meaningful strings. The legacy gTLDs should be deprecated and eventually retired. The ccTLDs would remain the responsibility of their associated sovereignty, and could be regional or generic in nature, however the ccTLD authority wishes to run their registry. In a nutshell, that's Mike Batchelor's Recipe for Enduring Happiness, Prosperity and Harmony for the 21st century.
Chuck
Current thread:
- Re: new.net richb (Mar 08)
- Re: new.net Jim Dixon (Mar 08)
- Re: new.net richb (Mar 08)
- Re: new.net Jim Dixon (Mar 08)
- Re: new.net richb (Mar 08)
- Re: new.net Simon Lockhart (Mar 08)
- Re: new.net Scott Gifford (Mar 09)
- RE: new.net Mike Batchelor (Mar 09)
- RE: new.net Charles Scott (Mar 09)
- RE: new.net Mike Batchelor (Mar 09)
- Re: new.net Scott Gifford (Mar 09)
- Re: new.net Charles Scott (Mar 10)
- RE: new.net Mike Batchelor (Mar 09)
- Re: new.net Scott Gifford (Mar 09)
- Re: new.net David Schwartz (Mar 09)
- Re: new.net Josh Richards (Mar 10)
- Re: new.net Jim Dixon (Mar 08)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: new.net richb (Mar 08)
- Re: new.net Martin Hannigan (Mar 08)
- RE: new.net Mathew Butler (Mar 08)
- RE: new.net Ken Eddings (Mar 08)