Re: [DNS] ABC: Australia supports global cyber-squatting regulations

Re: [DNS] ABC: Australia supports global cyber-squatting regulations

From: <ijakovac§>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 11:09:09 +1000
the current hierarchy is sufficient because you can not use geographical
hierarchy because paople
move around too much and will be hard to keep track of.

secondle, this is why we created emus and koalas so we can support more than one

|        |          Aristedes    |
|        |          Maniatis     |
|        |          <ari&#167;|
|        |          au>          |
|        |                       |
|        |          01/02/2000   |
|        |          10:01        |
|        |          Please       |
|        |          respond to   |
|        |          dns          |
|        |                       |
  |                                                                           |
  |       To:     dns&#167;                                             |
  |       cc:     (bcc: Ivan Jakovac/WSL/BROKING)                             |
  |       Subject:     Re: [DNS] ABC: Australia supports global               |
  |       cyber-squatting   regulations                                       |

on 1/2/2000 6:44 am, Geoff Huston at gih&#167; wrote:

> Repeat until it sinks in:
> The DNS is NOT a useful directory tool
> The DNS is NOT a useful directory tool
> The DNS is NOT a useful directory tool
> The DNS is NOT a useful directory tool

You may want to stand there and chant this till you are blue in the face,
but the reality is somewhat different to the design philosophy.

Why are generic domains so sought after? Because:

1- they attract the average user who wants to buy a book and types in

2- they are memorable

Now, you may not think so, but many millions of other people do. Hey, I've
been involved in the internet since before http and even ppp were available.
but I still tried and when looking for
information about those packages. (The first one is of course the home page,
the second is a squatter.)

So we might have to accept the fact that people use the DNS as a directory
tool. But how to produce a range of type domains which fulfil this

Given that a structure will quickly run into problems,
there is a need to determine a set of xyz where can

A- non hierarchical xyz such as the present system of emus, koalas, etc.

B- another system with criteria that can be guessed. eg. geographical data.

With plan B, a user wants to find my services. So they think "Where does he
live/work?". OK let's try But then suburbs
are not granular enough so we would need streets at least. Even then the
problem is not solved.

So we abandon geography (because that removes the purpose of unchangeable
points of internet contact and quickly becomes unwieldy). How about
birthdates, sex, parent name, tax file number, etc. ? None really work. They
are either too obscure, sensitive (private) or produce ridiculous results.

So we get back to plan A. No intuitive way to guess someone's URL, but at
least they are memorable. A little cutsie, but memorable.

But why aren't they used (much)? Perhaps there is just not that much
perceived need for individual domain space. Every ISP supplies free space of
the form of Every ISP wants to lock in users with
email addresses linked to that ISP, rather than existing in generic domain
space. It makes changing ISP that much more difficult. So I would not expect
ISPs to promote domain services outside their control.

The same thing happened with mobile phone numbers, and there is now a strong
demand for those to be transportable between carriers. Even court cases over
the issue.

Well... some food for thought.

Ari Maniatis

ish group pty ltd
7 Darghan St Glebe 2037 Australia
phone +61 2 9660 1400   fax +61 2 9660 7400
email info&#167;
PGP fingerprint 08 57 20 4B 80 69 59 E2  A9 BF 2D 48 C2 20 0C C8

This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
express permission of the author.  You don't know who really wrote it.
272 subscribers. Archived at (dns/dns)
Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request&#167; to be removed.
Received on Tue Feb 01 2000 - 08:14:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:03 UTC