Geoff wrote:
>I must admit that after much thought about this I wonder about the
>wisdom of using an external citation as the reference of 'validity'
>of a DNS name. The problem is that there are so many different
>citation points of reference and no clear uniformity or hierarchy
>between them all, that a DNS system which attempts to reference
>various external citation points still cannot resolve name clashes
>cleanly and in my humble view does little to solve the problem.

I agree - unless the external citation has already solved the
uniqueness problem, (and there aren't many I can think of that will)
then the problem of multiple organisations wanting the same name is
not resolved by resorting to external citation as a criteria for
allocation.

>Subdividing the DNS into citation points (rbn.vic.com.au for
>company names registered with the VIctorian Business Office
>for example) clearly does not make dns namesany easier,
>and I suspect that the attempt to map external name systems
>into the DNS will fail in the long run simply becuase of the
>extention of the cintation authority into the name makes an
>uncomfortably long name.

Agree here too, Geoff.  Theres a point of diminishing returns - the
lower level the domain name, the easier it is to ensure uniqueness,
but the less useable it becomes.

>So is First Com First Served a viable policy? Well tempered
>by some form of allocation management which is intended to
>precvent an individual or single corporate entity engaging in
>massive name hoarding (either direct policy or indirect through
>pricing policy) it may well be the best answer.

And Leni wrote:

>A stated intent on a DNAs part to implement a mapping between the
>DNS and an external citation authority might have a bit of legal
>risk too.

>Network Solutions have a FCFS policy and haven't yet had to pay any
>damages as a result of disputes between trademark owners and domain
>name holders and though they've been named in a number of lawsuits,
>they've mostly been dismissed as a party.

FCFS is a very viable policy for avoiding unwanted complications -
but it would have to be applied to conflicts WITHIN a 2LD as well as
problems BETWEEN 2LDs.

* Conflicts within a 2LD - eg: 'you gave him my name' type disputes.
 The issue here is how does the Domain Name Administrator protect
themselves?  There are really only two strategies:
1. First Come First Served - pretty simple and effective.
2. Using a very precisely defined criteria, which may include an
external citation of some sort.  eg, if we continue with the .tm.au
example, the criteria might be:

'We will first check if this is a valid trademark.  We will then
check if you are an owner of this trademark.  We will then check if
this domain name has already been allocated to someone else with the
same trademark in a different category.  If no one else it using it,
its yours.'

Only if the criteria are very clearly indicated and very
consistently applied will the domain name administrator minimise
their legal involvement/problems.  Even if the only criteria is
FCFS, the administrator had better make that damn clear and stick to
it, or they will dramatically increase their chance of legal
entanglements.

* Now, what about the issue of conflicts between domains - eg the
'what do you mean I can't get a domain in .asn.au or .edu.au and
must use .com.au?' type of problem.  I mean, supposing some small
business - shall we use Coca-Cola as an example? - applies for a
domain name now in something other than .com.au and we get knocked
back?  How clear and consistently applied are the criteria currently
being used by the administrators of 2LDs other than .com.au to
determine overall eligibility?

Or, for a more realistic example, how about a for-profit business
producing educational material which thinks it would be better off
in .edu.au?

Any domain name administrator wanting to minimise their chances of
legal problems needs to have a criteria for an organisation being a
candidate for that 2LD that is just as clear and effective and
consistently applied as the different criteria for resolving
disputes within a 2LD.

Does anyone know if Network Solutions has ever completely refused to
give someone any .com domain name at all on the grounds that they
weren't eligible for .com?  I don't know, but I suspect not as long
as the applicant pays the money.  What is Melbourne IT's policy -
will it refuse to give a school a .com.au domain on the grounds that
it should be in .edu?  And if it was a private for-profit school?
So what is the criteria for others DNAs if they knock back an
application on the grounds that the organisation should apply
somewhere else?

I guess what I'm saying is that if I was a personal DNA or an
employee/officeholder of an organisation acting as a DNA I'd be damn
sure I had clearly spelled out criteria for acceptance into the 2LD
and also for approving an individual name withing the 2LD.  And if
we all decide that a new 2LD is warranted, its an opportunity to
minimise the problems by ensuring that any new 2LD comes with very
clear criteria.

Of course, DNAs may want to rely on the disarmingly simple and
effective tactic (kre's solution I understand) of 'so sue me I
haven't got any significant assets anyway'.  But other DNAs -
especially where they are an individual rather than a limited
liability organisation - after examining their own circumstances may
not be so sanguine about relying on this strategy.

Regards, Mark


 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*  Message From : HUGHES, MARK          *
*  Location     : AUSTRALIA-CCA HDQ     *
*  KOMAIL ID    : N17503  (CCAMCQN1)    *
*  Date and Time: 07/14/97  14:45:33    *
 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *