The Worldwide Domain Battle 183
pledibus writes "The New York Times's Sunday magazine contains an interesting article, Get Out of My Namespace, about the spate of conflicts over website names. The author synthesizes ideas from computer technology, law, history, onomastics, cultural anthropology, and probably a few other areas, and does a pretty nice job of it."
To me... (Score:5, Interesting)
Nice article (Score:4, Interesting)
Suckers. (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, some of the cases, especially the Bill Wyman one, are laughable.
The biggest example of abuse of this (Score:4, Interesting)
Are TLD's part of it? (Score:2, Interesting)
different regulation, not looser (Score:4, Interesting)
Brand Name War.... Taken to the Net (Score:5, Interesting)
The only difference now is the Arena. In a time where branding is everything, the value of one's name, and its association with one's web presence is tremendous.
However, the current domain name registration system is haphazard to say the least. On the one hand you get the country specific top level domains, which applies to all the countries except US (Thought the .US does exist). There's .com and .org to differentiate between commercial and non-commercial organisations, but nobody takes that distinction seriously. .net (not the MS platfrom) is yet another completely different story.
I think the first task of the day is to get this anarchical hierarchy into some order. We must get US to use it's TLD, and get rid of .com, .org, .net etc completely.
Then, there should be clear guidelines as to who gets .com.?? and .net.?? etc. PEople have made these disticntions for tax purpose, why not do it for domain name purposes?
Then there should be a new second level domain, such as .ind.?? for individuals to register their names. It should follow the first name surname pattern. Of course mary.brown.ind.uk is going to be a problem, and a resolution scheme must be found.
The first-come first-server free for all messy domain registration system does not bode well for making the internet any less complicated.
Moderate this comment
Positive: Offtopic [mithuro.com] Flamebait [mithuro.com] Troll [mithuro.com] Redundant [mithuro.com]
Negative: Insightful [mithuro.com] Interesting [mithuro.com] Informative [mithuro.com] Funny [mithuro.com]
Use hierarchical names (Score:5, Interesting)
The same name could exist under different toplevel labels.
In fact, once trademarked names started to be registered, the registries should have created obligatory subdomains corresponding to the categories of trademarks, so that a trademark for computers could not collide with a trademark for household appliances.
Now, the exact opposite is happening. Everyone is registering their name under all possible toplevel labels, thus further polluting the system.
Probably a new hierarchy should be created where everyone can register only names in appropriate categories. I.e. the classical trademark registering process has to be completed first.
Generic Drug Names (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Brand Name War.... Taken to the Net (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be great if all the blogs and personal homepages had and used only one TLD (.ind). Then Google could have an option to block all these websites. That would increase the relevancy of their search results.
Now, if only we could convince the spammers to use .spam ...
Re:Brand Name War.... Taken to the Net (Score:2, Interesting)
Organizations or companies might even try to register their name in every country they *might* do business in, for PR and to make it easier (and less confusing) for potential customers to find them.
Suing over similar names seems (mostly) ridiculous to me. Maybe it would be better to "force" domain names to be shared (using the next domain level to distinguish) in the case of a legitimate conflict?
Though I don't like using "force" to share, this solution is already voluntarily in effect in some cases... e.g. when you go to a site and at the top they say "if you are looking for X, go here."
The other downside with sharing domains is that businesses with shorter unique names (not requiring re-routing) might have an advantage.
Names aren't absolute (Score:4, Interesting)
Faced with the problem of different interpretations of "truth.com" and "beauty.com", formally there is no realistic way of managing them under a single administration to the satisfaction of all.
The article is confused about what it is proposing, suggesting both to "loosen the cords" and to enforce "truthfulness and authenticity". This is nonsense.
What the Internet needs is a way of setting up trust relationships between users and naming administrations (and between naming administrations themselves). This could be bolted onto the current system by having a wide variety of top-level names that denote the administrations, just as with the country names. Administrations would then be free to borrow name information from each other so the name domains would not really be exclusive.
There were a couple of annoying companies that attempted to introduce a system like this by modifying the browser's name lookup mechanism (Real Names was one). These were annoying because they attempted to hide what was going on (appropriating the regular DNS system) but the underlying principle is sound, and indeed inevitable.
(Useful semi-formal papers on naming are hard to come by - I've been using this 1993 one [ansa.co.uk] by Rob van der Linden, which despite being surprisingly prescient must have been superseded by something more web-age by now).
Re:No. (Score:3, Interesting)
"Each honest calling, each walk of life, has its own elite, its own aristocracy based on excellence of performance. -- James Bryant Conant"
The Internet should be governed and run by technical people with demonstrated skill -- Programmers from both sides of the open-source divide, administrators and help-desk technicians, etc.
Re:Use hierarchical names (Score:3, Interesting)
The majority of people think that
For such a change to be made to be "organized", it would cause its own problems. Even if we did follow rules for internationalization. What qualifies as a world organization? Do you need to be the only organization with that name? Do you need to have offices in more than 1 country? Who decides? etc.
So, we abondon the
I may be a fan of ManufactuerProduct.com for names (e.g. DodgeViper, ChevyLumina) rather than product.com. However, I am MORE in favor of viper.dodge.com and lumina.chevy.com, if we want to stick with heirarchy. 1 Company, 1 domain. Unlimited subdomains.
All-in-all, this is just a duct-tape and glue solution to a BIGGER problem of trademarking and copywriting which need to be handled first.
Creativity (Score:3, Interesting)
So it may seem silly now, but I think in the long run it will just make our language more interesting.
Re:Brand Name War.... Taken to the Net (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Reg Free Link (Score:3, Interesting)
Domain Names (Score:3, Interesting)
After having actually read the entire 6 pages of the article, I would point out that most all of this article is about
Conversely, individuals who cybersquat names of corporations in the
Anyhow... moral of the story? Better enforcement of the top level domains (com, org, net, info, edu) and expansion thereof. We are definately going to need more.
In fact, I predict that, eventually, society will need to open up every top level domain for usage to meet the demand for names.
Re:Use hierarchical names (Score:5, Interesting)
One bad decision in the design of DNS was that the toplevel name appears to the right.
It should have been com.dodge.chevy instead of the other way around.
The UK computer scientists tried to set it up that way, but they lost.
This is a bit strange, because most hierarchical directory systems already operated left-to-right instead of right-to-left.
The consequence is that there is a break between the hostname and directory path in a URL, where the direction changes. Most people don't understand that.
So instead of having http://com.dodge.viper/ or http://com.dodge/viper as alternatives, they want to register the composite name because otherwise nobody would be able to find it.
Local Names (Score:4, Interesting)
In Wiki, you can name a page just by putting "[[ ]]" marks around it, and it links to the page. Recent advances such as the NearLink [taoriver.net] have made it so that you can refer to pages on "nearby" wiki, even without naming the wiki. If the word you are linking to isn't defined on the immediate wiki, but it is defined on a near wiki, then the word links to it's definition on that nearby wiki.
But we're carrying the concept even further. With Local Names, we want to be able to link not just to wiki pages, but any sort of page. For example, you could bind [[Slashdot]] to http://slashdot.org/
But wait! There's more! We want to store these bindings in a "Local Names Server" [taoriver.net], which you could then tell people about, or store in your person preferences server, or a FOAF file. [foaf-project.org] Then, when you post to a website, or slashdot, or whatever, and refer to something that it doesn't know about, it can look it up in your personal local names server. Of course, Slashdot would have to know what local name servers are, and would have to know to look at them.
At the end of the day, what you effectively have, is a world without URL's- just lots of local names. You'd have a mechanism for "picking up" and "giving away" local names. So, for example, if someone refers to something by a name, and you like it, you can "pick it up" into your own local names server. There are all sorts of possibilities here.
Re:Suckers. (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course, the best protection is that who the hell would want 4176271CanadaInc.ca? (Even me, sheesh! :)
Re:No. (Score:2, Interesting)
No, ICANN are just idiots. (Score:3, Interesting)
The naming system was designed to be heirarchical because the flat hosts.txt naming system didn't scale, and it didn't scale 20 years ago.
What ICANN have done is make DNS flat, WHICH DOESN'T FUCKING SCALE.
Re:Brand Name War.... Taken to the Net (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Suckers. (Score:5, Interesting)
Laughable, but in a sad "glad-it-wasn't-me" way. The "other" Bill Wyman in question was a well-respected columnist for a major metropolitan newspaper. (No, not the Daily Planet ;-) - the Atlanta Journal-Constitution). He said at the time he had the backing of the newspaper if this went to court. Now imagine he wasn't a columnist. Imagine he was just some guy pulling down $25,000/year who didn't even know a lawyer, much less have one on retainer. He'd probably immediately give in (understandably, since he can't afford to fight it), and someone would have been successfully sued for using their legal name by someone who wasn't even born with the same legal name, but had more money and lawyers. Suddenly it becomes less funny.
Re:Suckers. (Score:2, Interesting)
By using an assigned numbered name, no one else can incorporate or trademark that "name" in Canada, and I suspect other counties would respect "Canada Inc" and not allow it either.
Eh, it was for a contract that needed an incorporation for tax laws, I wasn't going to waste time thinking up a real name...
So what you're saying is.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Why have names at all? (Score:1, Interesting)
Why should the network carry the overhead of translating the menomic URLs into IP addresses? The way I see it, these debates illustrate the weakness in the whole concept and point to the idea of just plain scraping it.
What should replace it? Nothing. If you want a specific IP address type it in. If you don't know it use a search engine.
My guess is that most folks spend very little time typing random urls into their browsers. They have a limited list of favorites or bookmarks or follow links in things they are reading. Some times they type in a url they see in an add or an article. Fine, give them a number. They have been using telephone numbers for a century.
'nuff said. /rant off