Hello S.A.Roberge,
The DNS was never intended to be a "directory" service, defining what
internet objects are. Simply where they are.
Strings have the meaning that those who use them give to them.
I am personally of the opinion that chartered/restricted TLDs should
exist only where a substantive case can be made that it is needed, and
that otherwise, the public/open market should make the decision about
how those strings are best used when decided when/where to register.
.org was actually the ultimate "Generic" TLD from the start.
It's actual definition was "anything that doesn't fit elsewhere."
The entire concept that it was some non-commercial thing from the
start is a misnomer that you can see when you review the relevant
documents.
Tuesday, June 26, 2001, 5:08:16 AM, S.A.Roberge wrote:
>> That's a misnomer. Any perception of that is based on a fallacious
>> understanding of the domain.
> Please allow an indulgently longish, and speculative post to the
> discuss-list:
> Salut, Tout le Monde
> Though Bill-X is correct ( comme d'habitude ;) about .NET/ORG,
> I have to agree with Philipe's general sentiment on the original nature
> of these gTLD's
> I also think it's too bad that the once mandated natures of .ORG and .NET
> have been homogenized (coopted?) by the truly "generic", and
> commercially driven "get your domain now!" appeal of the .COM namespace.
> A space which (if we can be honest) implied no defined purpose or
> identity as a TLD beyond (either of?) the words "company" or "commercial".
> Long before there were any financial transactions being conducted
> online, the defining factor for the .COM TLD was that it offered name
> resolution for domains relating to a company or business. This soon became
> any Registrant that had no .MILitary or .EDUcational claims, and who
> didn't fall under the descriptions of the other TLD's in RFC920.
> Specifically those involved with the building, maintainence, or
> population of the networks themselves in the .NET space. Or the more
> humanely distinctive .ORG space that encompassed any and all entities that
> were not associated with any commercial concerns. This came to be defined
> as non-profit organizations wanting to establish the purely social, or
> philanthropic elements within this expanding Internet, without having
> access to a University or .GOVernment network in order to do so.
> Though originally considered as the catch all TLD, the .ORG space had
> much more universal and consistent visibility with this standard
> as the network label for people and organizations who simply
> wished to communicate via the Net.
> By contrast the .COM TLD catered to any one individual who did not
> consider themselves as part of an official organization. The .COM
> namespace has since become filled with private vanity domains, and clever
> homesites that will likely never turn a cent over. Leaving .COM's
> main defining factor to be its generic "rememberability", or common usage
> more than anything else. A TLD that was further stripped of its identity
> as an open TLD for "business" when NSI tried to claim it as it's own in
> the late 90's under the guise of "intelectual property rights". in it's
> IPO propectus.
> At this point perhaps someone could clarify what actually happened to the
> social ideals behind the .ORG namespace and the technical nature of the
> .NET TLD ??? Did they simply succomb to commercial anarchy, and
> voracious demand for new registrations, or do redundant registrations for
> the sake of preserving brand identity come into play at this point.
> ( eg: free market forces + weak mandates = extra Registrar revenues )
> Then again, it's this kind of dilution of purpose that has helped set the
> stage for other TLDs to now be equally as meaningless as the gTLD trio,
> IMHO.
> ie.
> What (in the name of overdue progress) does .TV really have to do with
> television, broadcasting or even the island of Tuvaloo for that matter ?
> At best it's an open-ended promise of HappyDays.tv yet to come. That is
> after the domains get bought back byStudios/Producers/Lawyers from the
> systemic leaches who would pick them up in the first round draft. Though
> this time it is the Registrar itself that is speculating on the domain
> diredtly...we appear to have come full circle with this TLD.
> Or perhaps the market simply crashes under the weight of speculation...Que
> sera, sera.
> "Cash Grab" is such an ugly term.
> or/
> Besides it being a slightly more specific descriptor, what difference
> would a .BIZ domain offer to the browser that a .COM couldn't ?
> Or is .BIZ just a renewed effort to protect the rights or
> identities of trademark and copyright holders via a refreshed "namespace
> race" - Versus simply expecting the ICANN UDRP to work as it should for
> the present TLD's.
> I'm sure the lawyers are dissapointed in one sense, though enthused in
> another...as I suspect the prospect of parasitic speculators and squatters
> is still alive and well even in this new namespace. Though I really
> should research such .BIZ statements first...as I'm certain I saw some
> Marketing info floating about...
> In the end:
> Is this incremental growth in available TLD's all just about getting more
> cars on the road ( or printing more vanity license plates, to be more
> specific ) - in time for IPV6, or a Tech stock rally ? Gradualy
> increasing the supply, without outstripping demand, in the interest of
> maintaining price levels ?
> If all the TLD's resolve equally, what assurance does the .BIZ owner have
> that the equivalent .COM won't undermine his traffic ? What's the point of
> more TLD's if it just means more duplicate registrations to preserve brand
> identity ? There must be more to this...and I'm all ears !
> Personallly I'm hoping that the various communities behind this Tech
> actually have a vision for TLD's - One that will innovate upon the (as
> yet) relatively free and open networks, and possibly spawn some groovy new
> RFC's that will impact everything right up to the application layer?
> Hopefully offering opportunities that can advantage these publicly
> accesible peer-driven networks built on open standards, that defy
> borders, taxation...and other forms of encroaching Imperialism.
> Either way, the .COM legacy of generic ambiguity will surely make for some
> interesting historical notes someday...
> In some distant retrospective on this golden era of Networking.
> In the Public Domain...
> Jo Ferguson
> Toronto
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, William X. Walsh wrote:
>> Hello Philippe,
>>
>> Monday, June 25, 2001, 9:55:27 AM, Philippe Landau wrote:
>>
>> > .org is mainly perceived to stand for non-profit organizations,
>> > so it seems a perfect match for your open source efforts,
>> > but for the registrar stuff it could be seen as misleading.
>>
>> That's a misnomer. Any perception of that is based on a fallacious
>> understanding of the domain.
>>
>> > it's sympathetic to avoid the .com for what you do,
>> > and .net is used for commercial network-operations since years,
>> > so it could be a nice fit.
>>
>> .net is also an open unrestricted TLD.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> William X Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Userfriendly.com Domains
>> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
>> DNS Services from $1.65/mo
>>
--
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo
