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

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

From: Stephen Baxter <steve§senet.com.au>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 11:41:45 +1030 (CST)
> Gateway find cows works well for them as a branding. So do tucows. Playboy
> never found the bunny image a problem. But lets assume you're right, and
> this current id.au is failing because people don't like the animals and
> not because so few ISP's support id.au, or the mechanisms to make mail
> delivery work are charged for too highly, or any of 100 other reasons uptake
> may be slight [and I could also suggest that vanity domain names have less
> value than people think]

www.bunny.com defineatly ain't playboy nor is www.bunny.id.au

And the globe works well for our comapny - what is your point ?

 
> Fine. Find a neutral non-value laden namepoint (actually a large set of
> namepoints).

I do not think it needs to be that. I do not see a problem with first come
first served in namespaces. Works OK elsewhere [waiting for opinions on
.com and .net which I am sure will follow !].

> Implement a method for managing John.Smith&#167;smiths.something-relevant
> which scales for 1000+ John Smiths. If it involves auctioning off
> the nicer ones to rich people, you fail. If it involves one John Smith
> running it for all other smiths, you fail. If it excludes any John Smith
> who is an Australian citizen, you fail. If it excludes visiting overseas
> John Smiths, you fail.

Lets not try and keep the status quo - we all fail ! 
You do not see a problem, others do and want to try to come to a solution,
your goal seems to be to halt talk on that solution before it really
starts !
 
> Explain how people know that the John.Smith&#167;something-relevant is the
> one they want, from 1000 others. In your answer explain how the DNS
> is going to provide the searching function, and the referall and chained
> query functions required for this (C/F X.500)

Is www.books.com the one they want, what about www.shop.com ?
Damn - wrong shop !

Are you saying that a person could not implement a search of DNS spaces
via a web page or some other protocol ?

So a protocol that has the built in ability to query a massive distributed
database, to do bulk transfers of data could not be turned into a useful
resource for finding people (if that space was populated with name
references) who wanted to be found (maybe - knowing there will be false
hits as there are now with all other namespaces).

 
> Explain how this is going to be deployed under state competitive and
> federal guidelines. Who sets the charges. Who determines which names
> are acceptable. Who proves authorititive content. Explain how the competing
> interests adjudicate an outcome for the wider community. Explain how it
> helps locate people who ARE NOT UNDER smith.something.relevant, but are
> useful, online, and being sought in this supposedly global directory service.

man - you sure have a problem with these ideas/requests for discussion.

We have gone from a technical discussion of why DNS does not make a good
directory tool (granted - not what it was developed for) to trying to
thrash out the implementation on the sales and admin side of the backend
operations needed to make it happen. So are we now saying that we can do
it - technically ?

o  How does com.au/MelbIT resolve competing interestes ?

o  How does MIT set the charges ?

o  How does MIT determines which names are acceptable ? They use proof -
   they still cannot stop two companies with the same name clashing -
   oops !

o  etc etc

What I am trying to say is that they is no rocket science involved here,
that other ventures have grapled successfully with these issues.

As for "Explain how it helps locate people who ARE NOT UNDER 
smith.something.relevant, but are useful, online, and being sought in
this supposedly global directory service." - no online directory service
does. If you ever tried to find all businesses in Yahoo.com.au - they are
not all there - they may be one or may not ....


 
>   I do not know the answer with respect to id.au but do you honestly think
>   that a TLD space that you share with furry creatures is suitable ?
> 
> Given user&#167;ihug.co.nz, I can't see whats objectionable about banksia.com.au
> (a flower) or dingoblue.com.au (an animal) so please, whats the issue here?
> that the animal and plant is under id.au makes it 'less worthy' ? Oh please.

Yes - I do not want a domain name under emu.id.au - that is right and I
would not and many others would not as well. I think that 
blah.furry-animal.id.au sounds dumb and I believe that many others share
my point. 

dropbear  (what is the policy here - is the drop bear an actual specis, it
           used to be a story we told to gullible US servicemen to get
           them scared)
echidna
emu
ironbark
lorikeet
redgum
wallaroo
waratah
wattle
wombat


Have you surveyed the prospective userbase to see if that is exactly what
they want ? If so please provide details and ensure they are statistically
correct !



 

-- 
Stephen Baxter             SE Network Access/Big Networks Australia
phone : +61 8 8221 5221    222 Grote Street 
fax   : +61 8 8221 5220    Adelaide 5000, Australia
Received on Tue Feb 01 2000 - 09:11:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Apr 27 2015 - 00:00:08 UTC