[ draft-iahc-datta-name.txt          ]
[ Author: Aveek Datta, adatta@ml.org ]
[ Expires: March 1, 1997             ]

                    What's in a .NAME?
                    Different TLDs, Different Registries

Foreword

  This is a very old document I wrote, before the IAHC's proposal.
  IAHC's decision to share all TLDs makes this document unnecessary; however 
  this is still submitted in support of the "all TLDs are shared" model.

Abstract

  This document attempts to define registries in terms of the TLD they
  serve and to dispel the myth that all .NAMEs (ie top level names)
  are the same. The goal is to justify creation of smaller registries 
  as viable alternatives to large companies.

Background

  A registry can be classified first by their REGISTRATION POLICY:
  open or closed. Secondly a registry can also be classified by
  the REQUEST VOLUME: high, medium, or low volume. As will be
  shown, these classifications are often directly linked to 
  the .NAME chosen.

Registration Policy

  Registration policy can be open; outside of technical requirements
  the registry is open to ALL people. A real-world today example
  is the TLDs .COM, .NET, and .ORG. The slight attempt at regulation
  of what domains can be in .ORG and .NET failed miserably and
  these domains are basically open to all.

  On the other the policy can exclude certain hosts; the obvious
  example is many ISO Country TLD Registries who enforce that
  only hosts located in this country may "live" in that TLD.

Request Volume

  High volume TLDs require a registry with a definite online and
  business prescence; because of sheer volume, these TLDs require
  an office and a good number of staff to maintain. The prime
  example is the Internic and some of the country TLD registries.

  Medium volume TLDs require a registry with a definite online
  prescence. These TLDs require a good deal of startup to automate
  and create the databases required, but after startup a skeleton
  staff is enough to maintain the TLD in question. Though a specific
  example does not come to mind, many of the smaller country TLD
  registries fall into this category.

  And finally there are low volume TLDs. On the extreme end, a
  low volume TLD could be one or two people manually creating a
  database. 

The Future of Open Registries

  Assuming the creation of new registries, there will be several
  types of registries that will be formed. First the Open TLDs:

  Registries that serve open or mostly open global TLDs with a
  large customer base. (Open, High). These registries would
  compete with the current Internic registry and thus have to
  provide top quality service. These registries should be
  expected to have some computer experience and a good amount
  of capital to maintain the TLD. Only large ISPs and other
  Internet firms would be able to handle such a registry. 
  Popular names like .WEB and .WWW would most probably fall
  in this category.

  Registries that serve open or mostly open global TLDs that
  expect a smaller customer base can also exist. These are
  the more random or otherwise not as popular names. Creation
  of a new top level name .N13 will obviously not generate as
  much interest as new .WEB tld. The registries who choose to
  serve such a TLD need not as large a business prescence as
  the ones above.

The Creation of Closed Registries

  Now for closed TLDs. There are two types of closed TLDs;
  the TLDs that close on some sort of generic trait -- as
  in .MED might be limited to only those involved in medicine
  (as decided by the registry), and the ones that are closed
  by the registry on a more business line -- as in .IBM.

  Closed TLDs of the first type can be classified similar to
  the open registries above. However, closed TLDs of the
  second type should be discouraged as it opens a wide door
  for big corporations to abuse the top level namespace,
  which is a public resource. 
  
  Another possible (maybe very unlikely, but possible) problem 
  would be the creation of a .KKK TLD. The reader can think of
  the possible problems with this TLD and the fine line between
  closed and discriminatory practices.

Goal/Summary

  The .NAME requested by a TLD is the basis, or at least a
  very important part, of the registry itself. Different TLDs
  require different registries; and the allocation of
  inherently low to medium volume TLDs can be a good thing
  and create even more choices for the Internet user.

Contact Information

This text written and copyright 1997 by

   Aveek Datta                        adatta@ml.org
   c/o Monolith Coalition             http://datta.ml.org
   Box 8159                           Phone 412-862-2661
   Pittsburgh PA 15217                Pager 412-686-9742

   Network Administrator Monolith Coalition Free Internet Services,
    including world's largest free 3rd level registry, http://www.ml.org

Permission to copy this document as long as credit is given.
Permission to place on IAHC website is given.