At 10:33 AM 2/11/99 +00-04, Kerry Miller wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 00:50:13 -0800
>> From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >Could we think of it as a tree, with subsections branching into other
>> >lists?
>>
>> 1) Too hard to follow,
>> 2) The other lists are decidedly NOT neutral,
>> 3) breaks thread filters,
>> 4) Not all participants are members of all lists (most of them are on
>> IFWP)
>> 5) Breaking the thread risks being ignored.
>> 6) Please quit being "funny".
>>
>> This list get a few hundred messages per day and we want to keep to the
>> thread.
>>
> "The" thread has a way of being hard to pin down in c-space,
>doesnt it?
Provided that it stays within certain parameters, I don't have too tough a
time of it.
>A response simply by introducing a new word can lead to
>branches; discussion raises new slants, related issues,
>precedents or parallels form other fields, etc etc.
There was a time when I really enjoyed contemplating such navel fuzz.
However, at the end of a long day of facilitation and research, I just
don't have the energy.<sigh>
>My suggestion was therefore not meant to be 'funny' at all, but a
>reminder that the verbal confusion (to use as broad a term as
>possible) that prevails here might actually be indicative of a 'meta-
>problem': is trademark reconciliation *intrinsically* difficult to
>resolve, or it is our manner of proceeding that makes it seem that
>way?
Actually, I believe the issues are resolvable, or I wouldn't be wasting
time trying to resolve them. Neither would the others. I don't *think*
people enjoy bickering so much. All sides have reasonable fears that they
want to see addressed. It is a matter of identifying the concerns and
addressing them accordingly. If enough understanding is found and
sufficient concerns are addressed then maybe, just maybe, we can find some
resolutions.
>I note that in your enthusiasm for a single consistent SL, you
>abandoned the 'branch' I offered (~/discussion). Was it hard to
>follow? Did it break your filter? By 'funny,' are you saying that you
>cant conceive of using such a variation on your theme under any
>circumstances?
I was addressing you with my impression that you were playing with the
subject and not being serious. Your message here still leaves that
impression. This thread *is* about discussion.
>> >> >... many people do not see the TLD name
>> >> >as serving this role of differentiation among uses of the same TM
>> >> >name.
>> >> >
>> > In fact, it seems as tho the DN tree is being inverted, as if (e.g.)
>> > NMA.COM and NMA.ORG are branches of some NMA root!
>...
>> > What [*]could[*] be gained by that inversion is clear to me, at least.
>>
>> Good, then why not state it?
>>
> Because it is evident from the context.
You are playing at this point, I refuse to play the 20 questions game.
Please state your case plainly.
> /namespace
>> >But it also leads me to wonder if we have been too literal in
>> >construing the *third level namespace. Is there a functional problem
>> >if www.nma.com was one ownership, and xxx.nma.com was
>> >another? (Each one of course could register whatever space they
>> >needed for their own network, but really, would such a list be bigger
>> >than *two* characters could deal with?)
>>
>> Could you clarify this?
>
>I used xxx.nma.com as a simple example of a more general
>concept of 'borrowing' low(est) level namespace for *DNS-level
>resolution of a domain-name. As long as there is only one
>registrant for a given SLD, clearly there is no problem with
>trademark or otherwise; it is only when there is *contention* for the
>SLD that questions arise. To date, ad hoc (read NSI and trademark
>law) solutions have accepted that only the SLD need be considered
>(thus the ambiguous standing of nma.org versus nma.com), and
>proposals for (a finite number of) other top-level domains, while they
>do have other justifications, do nothing to solve this *conceptual*
>problem (as someone pointed out, tradename-space is not cut and
>dried either).
Actually, the position of the trademark contingent stifles new TLD
development because the name, regardless of TLD assignment, could be
considered a violation. This includes names in the ccTLDs, according to
Marty. I am in agreement with him, in that enforcement of TLD charters
would definitely reduce the problem.
> I accept that *by the present hierarchical rules* lower-level names
>have been solely the concern of the SLD owner -- but if we 'back
>up' to look at *multiple SLD ownership, isnt the third (etc) level a
>*logical way to accomodate them all, to an approximately infinite
>extent?
Do you run a name server? It doesn't work that way and can not be coerced
that way either.
>Or was it the implication that *all sub-domains could be
>accomodated by two-character 3LDs which surprised you? That
>was not my intent; I was simply trying to continue the example of a
>three-letter 3L to suggest that this 'innovation' need not *supplant*
>present usage (without knowing the combinatorial math to
>determine hoiw many two characters would accomodate). But
>obviously (to me ;-)) a three characters string is arbitrary in the first
>place; if MHSC has millions of clients, there is certainly no reason
>why wwwwwww.mhsc.com cant cope with them *as well as* the
>myriad of folks who would also like to use MHSC as their SLD.
>
>As Greg commented, in fact this is already done in practice. I can
>only say Im amazed that this had never been mentioned earlier.
I am quite aware of the practice. IMHO, such a system is difficult to
manage and doesn't scale well as a result.
___________________________________________________
Roeland M.J. Meyer -
e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet phone: hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com
Personal web pages: http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
Company web-site: http://www.mhsc.com
___________________________________________________
KISS ... gotta love it!
