Re: DNS: ADNA Memoranda & Articles

Re: DNS: ADNA Memoranda & Articles

From: Geoff Huston <gih§>
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 15:26:33 +1000
Too many second level domain names as just as bad as too few.

FREDs Fish - is it,,,,....?

IN and of itself more 2ld domain names is not a clear solution.

So Why Bother?

a - to allow open competition amoung name providers

    If you cannot make operable by a number of openly competing
    registrars within then a potential approach to market competition
    is to open up "similar" SLDs which allow competition across the domains.
    I readily admit its a poor alternative to competition within the SLD but may
    be dictated by external conditions.

b - to relieve name congestion is already taken but FREDs fish still wants to use the name

   I think this is often a poor solution as both and now
   get their identity confused in the eyes of the end consumer.

   You have to weigh up these factors against the observation that the value
   of overloading the name space with directory semantics lies in the very
   factor of usupring name collision, and if you open up more namespace those
   entities who see a high value in their name will occupy the new space
   with their names as a justifiable measure to protect the integrity of the

So the point I'm making is that automatic mimicry of the generic top level
domain name within .au, or within any ISO3166 name space is not
a good thing in and of itself.


At 02:38 PM 12/5/97 +0930, Stephen Baxter wrote:
>> Really? Personally I find that a somewhat difficult leap of logic to parse. How do you
>> arrive at the conclusion that the ISO 3166 spaces should mirror all generic top level
>> domain names? What particular need would this measure address?
>If the 2LD space under .au is not be opened up further then why does ADNA
>or any other body have to be formed. I do not really care about .de or
>Somebody at the last meeting said that kre had managed so far by just
>approving next to no 2LDs for some time. If the management of .au is to
>happen by automatic rejection then fine. What about the and
>that been floated around - either they have been rejected or haven't even
>been tried - I do not really know but there has to be an organisation in 
>place to handle any new application for 2LD name space then the right
>desicions can be made. 
>I can see a need for some of the names under the IAHC proposal.
>I suppose we could say why do the 2LD under .au need to generally
>following some of the present top level domains :
>.com   -
>.org   -
>.net   -
>.edu   -
>.gov   -
>I think that people expect it to follow as it has in the past.
>Thats why !
>>   Geoff
>> >
>> >Then I see a real need for ADNA as the applications to become DNAs roll
>> >in.
>> >
>> >> Perhaps you would care to further elaborate on why you percieve such a connection
>> >> to exist.
>> >> 
>> >> thanks,
>> >> 
>> >>   Geoff
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> At 10:09 PM 11/5/97 +0000, Stewart Carter wrote:
>> >> >Geoff,
>> >> >
>> >> >I don't agree that the ADNA concept is 'broken' simply because there are 
>> >> >different types of DNA's, only some of which should contribute funds to the 
>> >> >operations/management of this very necessary supervisory/regulatory body.
>> >> >
>> >> >Aside from the question of how to keep Melbourne IT honest, there is the need 
>> >> >to implement new developments such as your own IAHC's recommendations viz 
>> >> >.firm,.rec,.store,..web etc.
>> >> >
>> >> >BTW, when/where is the next meeting of the Domain Names Forum.
Received on Mon May 12 1997 - 15:53:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:02 UTC