Received: from TROUSER (trouser.isomedia.com [207.149.220.251])
	by isomedia.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA08184
	for <us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov>; Wed, 19 May 1999 14:56:05 -0700
From: "Allan Bennett" <abennett@isomedia.com>
To: <us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov>
Subject: .us domains
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 14:56:20 -0700
Message-ID: <NCBBLGIODAEBKPHMPHHDMEHICOAA.abennett@isomedia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
Importance: Normal

After reading everyone's comments on TM law and property why not set up a
system where:

> The Stone Corporation, which has been making monuments for 40 years

Can register stone.monuments.us

> The Stone Family, which has been doing business as Stone Hardware for >
100 years?

Can register stone.hardware.us

Jeff Stone can register stone.surname.us

And Stone LLC which makes yet to be developed "XYZPDQ". Can register
stone.xyzpdq.us (if xyzpdq is not a trademark) and/or xyzpdq.invention.us

The point is any second level domain could not be controlled, only third
level. And by not setting any predefined second level, choice of third level
domain name should be fair and limitless.

-Allan

.
Received: by spitfire.law.miami.edu (Postfix, from userid 1113)
	id 16152329812; Wed, 19 May 1999 21:55:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by spitfire.law.miami.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 0E81C32A80A; Wed, 19 May 1999 21:55:55 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 21:55:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
Reply-To: Michael Froomkin <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
To: Allan Bennett <abennett@isomedia.com>
Cc: us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Re: .us domains
In-Reply-To: <NCBBLGIODAEBKPHMPHHDMEHICOAA.abennett@isomedia.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9905192152070.7553-100000@spitfire.law.miami.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

In some countries, individuals get ONLY the 4th level.  The third level
cannot be registered.  So Jeff stone gets

jeff.stone.per.us

and the next jeff stone must be content with 
jeff1.stone.per.us
or the like, but no one is allowed to register a 3rd level surname.
Fairer.

I'd also like to point out that the Canadian government has just published
rules for the .ca domain, and these are considered by many to be state-
of-the-art

On Wed, 19 May 1999, Allan Bennett wrote:

> 
> Jeff Stone can register stone.surname.us
> 

-- 
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                    -->   It's hot here.   <-- 

.
Received: (qmail 1772 invoked by uid 524); 20 May 1999 03:20:44 -0000
Date: 20 May 1999 03:20:44 -0000
Message-ID: <19990520032044.1771.qmail@sidehack.sat.gweep.net>
From: "JZP" <crimson@sidehack.sat.gweep.net>
To: us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Re: .us domains
In-Reply-To: <NCBBLGIODAEBKPHMPHHDMEHICOAA.abennett@isomedia.com>

[Please pardon any terrible typos. Slow link today, and I'm typing ahead
about a paragraph at a time.]

> After reading everyone's comments on TM law and property why not set up a
> system where:
[snip]
> > The Stone Family, which has been doing business as Stone Hardware for >
> 100 years?
>
> Can register stone.hardware.us
[snip]
> And Stone LLC which makes yet to be developed "XYZPDQ". Can register
> stone.xyzpdq.us (if xyzpdq is not a trademark) and/or xyzpdq.invention.us
[snip]

This only "works" if you require an organization/person to be limited to
one domain - otherwise you get the "innovative hardware store" that
believes they simply MUST have both "stone.hardware.us" and
"stone.inventions.us"... and while they're at it, they're contemplating
getting into the network business, so they need "stone.network.us", etc and
you have the .COM/.NET/.ORG problem all over again.

And -of course- if you make a rule that there can only be one domain per
entity, you get into the nasty game of defining entities (names? postal
addresses? incorporated companies?) and -as usual- the company with the most
money, that can afford to incorporate as many trivial holding companies as
they desire, will snatch up all the "good" names.  Not to mention that the
highly vocal contingent that will undoubtable cry "restrain of trade" or
"preferential treatment" or some other complaint.  Actually, no matter what
plan gets created, there will be people unsatisfied.  That needs to be
understood by everyone involved in the process...

> The point is any second level domain could not be controlled, only third
> level. And by not setting any predefined second level, choice of third level
> domain name should be fair and limitless.
That really only moves the problem further up the tree.  "Further up" [your
definition of how far up will vary] is where the problem _belongs_, but the
placement doesn't resolve the problem.

Should the existing geopolitical structure be "frozen" when a new plan
comes out, or remain in parallel?  I'd argue in parallel, as we'll
undoubtably see continued use in the 'managed' section (not to mention the
FNC and NSF needing to be involved WRT the k12.<state>.us migration, etc).

Should there be a categorization structure laid out by committee (ie, in
this forum)?  I'd argue that we'd probably make something acceptable to the
community at present, but would become outdated as the community changed, a
la RFC1480.

Should there be no formt at all, first-come, first served in a flat and
unmanaged namespace?  That may work in a small population (.CA) or in
a country renting its ISO CC to the world (.TO), but I have many arguments
against this in a large-population with a ... sense of territory (.US).

I'd propose a structure be put in place with a few general categories,
delegated to the management of (DoC/ISI/their delegates), and leaving an
open framework for delegate-wannabees to propose -to the community- new
categories they would like to manage.  This 
	- avoids design-by-committe or -in-a-vacuum for all but an
	  obligatory starter-set of subdomains
	- avoids a total mess
	- delegates the 'meaning policing' problem down to the level
	  of the subset of the community that has a _vested_interest_
	  in the meaning of the zone they manage
	- allows the marketplace of ideas (whatever committee or consortium
	  or agency or public process reviewed new zone proposals) to sort
	  out good and bad categories
	- allows the 'consumer market' to select between new zones managed
	  by profit motive (i would assume some companies would wish to
	  propose new categories in which they see a potential profit),
	  the basic 'starter-set' zones managed by the govt/DoC/ISI/a 
	  consortium, and new zones managed by other motives (non-profits,
	  educational, etc).  This prevents putting commerce above research
	  as well as putting research above commerce, striking a balance
	  between them and other factors.
	- potentially sidesteps legal/trademark issues by putting the onus
	  on the delegatees?

Thoughts?  This is a strawman - shred away...

Joe
                 http://www.gweep.net/~crimson/pgp.txt
 crimson@sidehack.gweep.net * jprovo@gnu.ai.mit.edu * jzp@rsuc.gweep.net
 Disclaimer:  "I'm the only one foolish enough to claim these opinions."
          RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / AAC / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
.
Received: from iciiu.org (slip-ppp-1-195.perfekt.net [205.230.176.195])
	by perfekt.perfekt.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA11924;
	Wed, 19 May 1999 23:30:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <374380DD.DA00E3BB@iciiu.org>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 23:26:21 -0400
From: Michael Sondow <msondow@iciiu.org>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [fr] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Froomkin <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
CC: Allan Bennett <abennett@isomedia.com>, us-list@ntiant1.ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Re: .us domains
References: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9905192152070.7553-100000@spitfire.law.miami.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by perfekt.perfekt.net id XAA11924

Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law a =E9crit:

> I'd also like to point out that the Canadian government has just publis=
hed
> rules for the .ca domain, and these are considered by many to be state-
> of-the-art

Information and some discussion on the reorganization of .CA was
posted some time ago on the IFWP and other lists. I and a few others
attempted in vain to draw comparisons between the CDNCC plan
(http://www.canarie.ca/cdncc/finalreport.html) and CIRA bylaws
(http://www.canarie.ca/cdncc/BYLAWV71.html), and ICANN. The work of
the CDNCC is even more a propos of the .US reorganization, although
it's hard to imagine the USG, or what passes here for the Internet
community, designing a registrar, like that of the Canadians, whose
members are the domain name registrants. We don't see the Internet
as a service to users, do we? If we did, there wouldn't be all this
trouble over the NewCo and ICANN.
.