Subject: ramblings from Alan Barrett
  Date:  Fri, 13 Dec 1996 02:58:33 +0200
  From:  Alan Barrett <apb@iafrica.com>
    To:  iahc-submit <iahc-submit@iahc.org>


Here are some of my ideas about the iTLD issues.  I am sorry that they are
not better organised.


The DNS is not a directory search service.  DNS names should be stable,
it would be nice if they were easy to remember, but they do not need to
be easy to guess.

The DNS namespace is very different from the trademark namespace.  I
think that it would be a good idea to create a part of the DNS namespace
that has a one-to-one mapping to the trademark namespace, and try
to make it clear to the public that names in other parts of the DNS
namespace are not necessarily trademarks and do not necssarily conflict
with trademarks.  I envisage names like mcdonalds.food.us.marca,
freds-auto-dealership.transport.ca.us.marca, apple.music.uk.marca.
Numeric codes instead of mnemonic names for the different trademark
categories would be fine by me.  My point is really that the name needs
to include at least 4 components:  The trademarked word or phrase,
the category in which the trademark is registered, the geographical
area in which the trademark is registered, and a component that
identifies this as a portion of the DNS namespace used for trademarks.
If trademark classification categories do not vary by country or
state/province/whatever within a country, then it might make sense to
have us.food.marca instead of food.us.marca.

The root of the DNS namespace is a public resource, and should be
managed in the public trust.  At present, the IANA is the trustee of
that public resource.  I think that that's OK.

Deciding on the names and the rules or charters for new iTLDs (if any)
is separate from deciding who should administer the TLDs.  If it is
decided (by the IANA or some new body that will look after the root of
the namespace) that a new TLD with a particular name and charter is a
good idea, then one or more registrars should be appointed to handle
registrations in that domain, and they should be required to comply with
the charter, preferably on a renewable contract basis.  The decision that
a particular new TLD is a good idea shoule be made *before* the decision
of who will act as registrar for that new TLD.

I do not see a need for creating _many_ new iTLDs.  Perhaps .MARCA
and just a few others.  If there is a perceived need to create some
kind of free-for-all where thousands or millions of meaningless or
meaningful high-level domain names will be created, then I would like
that to be one level lower down.  Instead of company.XYZABC, let it be
company.XYZABC.X.

Since there is a perceived need for competition, I think that shared
registries would be useful.

--apb (Alan Barrett)