Subject: [Ietf] New .mobi, .xxx, ... TLDs?

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 15:46:44 +0100

Hi,

Is the IETF or ISOC going to take any stance against this slippery slope?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/03/20/new.domains.ap/

Comment period closes April 30th.

Tim

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 13:02:13 -0400

> Comment period closes April 30th.

Tim,

Addressing the IETF part of your question only, let me turn the 
question around.  On what basis would you see the IETF 
objecting?  Certainly the general notion of what ICANN now calls 
a "sponsored" (restricted-use) non-country TLD is nothing new: 
in theory (and in practice for a significant number of years), 
NET, EDU, and others were domains in which one had to meet 
specific requirements to register.  So, if there is a slippery 
slope there, we were down it before RFC 1591 was written.

Clearly, there is a case to be made that at least some of these 
proposals are problematic in one way or another and that some of 
the issues are technical or operational.  But those issues are 
presumably different for different proposals.  So what would you 
have the IETF say, and how would you propose organizing a 
process to approve such a statement, ideally between now and 
April 30?

As a specific example, RFC 3675 addresses some of the issues 
with at least one of these proposals.  But it largely addresses 
policy issues, rather than technical ones, and is an 
individual-submission informational RFC.  Would you propose that 
the IETF endorse it and recommend to ICANN that they pay 
attention to it and, if so, on what basis?

Note that these are just questions to think about -- I've got 
opinions on some of these issues, but hope that you cannot 
deduce them from this particular note.

  regards,
    john

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 13:08:36 -0400 (EDT)

I suspect I am going to regret asking, but how is this a "slippery slope",
and why should anyone be against it?  Perhaps more to the point, why
should the IETF have any interest whatsoever?

		--Dean

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 13:02:13 -0400

Tim,

  regards,
    john

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 13:08:36 -0400 (EDT)

--Dean

---

From: jfcm <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:43:13 +0200

>should the IETF have any interest whatsoever?

May be should I respond this as I do agree with "slippery slope" and I am 
known to support a far wider number of TLDs. Also because I think the issue 
is crucial.

First, I am afraid John is wrong when he refers to RFC 1591 as having 
started it. Actually Tim is right : it has not started yet, or only partly 
started in 2000.  Please refer yourself to RFC 920 and previous RFCs on 
DNS. DNS is the naming system of the legacy ARPANET Internet. It was 
aggregated to the international naming scheme in 1984 after meeting the 
operators of the external networks, since 1983 RFC 880/2. DoD/ARPA meeting 
with Tymnet in 12.83, Tymnet annoucement of IP support early 84. Some in 
here participated and might comment. What is important is that the today 
situation is similar and that the 1984 consensus described in RFC 920 has 
proven to be stable and good enough for 33 years (cf.infra).

As Vint says, why to change something which works?

The target was, as it is today, to get accepted end to end interoperability 
with more external systems. This meant openness, no conflict, naming format 
consistency and credibility. Actually RFC 920 describes the way it 
developed since 1971 (first commercial user) and 1977 (beginning of the 
global interconnects) and the way Internet could nicely insert itself into 
it. Internet did it so seamlessly that it took over.

1. the different connected real (COM, NET) or virtual (EDU) networks had 
their root names (names of their root into the APANET Internet)  accepted 
(they are named "TLD" in the DNS jargon). As the ARPANET Internet had its 
"ARPA" root name.

2. the global backbone was, by then, the international public packet switch 
system by monopolies and common carriers. It used Tymnet or X.25/75 links 
and identified networks (real and virtual) in either using ISO 3166 3 
letter codes or X.121 DCCs. Some virtual communities networks (externets) 
piped (refilled) their traffic through it. The largest number were the 
Telex refillers. They were identified for their support and some naming 
through Telex ISO 3166 2 letter codes. RFC 920 only uses that common 
practice in foreseeing ccTLDs (RFC 1591 introduces nothing new, and its 
rightfully that ICANN claims its legitimacy over the Legacy from RFC 920 
and 921 - cf. ICP-3). In 1986  Austrian people forged the IP address 
cluster concept to support their Internet island (through Tymnet and X.25 
link by Radio Austria). Then IETF was created and changed nothing. Why to 
change something which works?

3. RFC 920 details the process of creating new TLDs. The need is to avoid 
conflict with other existing names (like today "Macedonia" for country 
names) and the name to be accepted in the root files of all the 
inter-netted networks. By then, the de facto world referent being the 
Tymnet registry, the retained RFC 920 rule is its best practice, based on 
its international experience since 1977. It calls for an 
expected  significant number of domain owners (500 is quoted) to credibly 
organize it together (multiorganization TLDs). Experience had shown it 
warranted the projects to be serious, open enough to avoid conflicts, 
credible enough to be accepted by other operators and by the market and to 
rise enough commercial interest to foot the various costs involved. RFC 
1591 confirms this in describing the TLD Manager as the trustee of his 
community and in saying that IANA is not in the business of saying what is 
a country (the same as ICANN should not be in the business of saying what 
is a TLD).

If IANA/ICANN are not in the business of saying what is a TLD, IETF is 
however in the business of saying what is technically _not_ a TLD.

".tel" and ".mobi" are technically inconsistent propositions. They confuse 
what belongs to the scheme (protocol/application) with what  belongs to the 
naming (users group). The same as was ".web" did in 2000.

To better understand, let take the mnemonic "IBM" and its ASCII domain name 
"ibm.com".
- when I enter http://ibm.com I expect to reach the IBM web site in using 
the HTTP protocol.
- when I enter tel://ibm.com I expect to reach the IBM switchboard (once 
the current VoIP delaying confusion is cleared).
- what will I expect to reach when entering http://ibm.tel, and what is 
tel://ibm.tel adding to me ?

Actually they create at least four major technical problems:

1. a conflict with multilingualization while MINC is working hard to 
implement IDNA and to test a response to the ML.ML urgency. ".tel" or 
".mobi" are application oriented and are not multilingual. How do I know 
the _language_ that an English or a French sounding name will use. How will 
I give my "xn----.tel" Arabic name to a Chinese correspondent?

2. real demand IMHO goes far beyond ML. I think it goes to total 
vernacularization (schemes, formats, LHS, names and TLDs). What will mean 
the possible "vernacularization like" registration of "33142928100.tel" 
(Chirac's) ? Who will people reach? Will it be the same number as in using 
an ENUM system? Is there an RFC on this convergency? (3314292281000.far is 
under the control of the FR ccTLD Manager).

3. There are 6 possible IPv6 plans. The only one discussed right now 
(IPv6.001) is a flat plan offering a lot of problems and a world wide 
control to ICANN. Many voices therefore call for the study of another plan 
(IPv6.010) permitting to test IPv6 as a multi-plan system and able to match 
the architecture of other plans in use, complying with international 
standards. This would permit a universal numbering scheme of the world 
digital ecosystem (Internet, TV, Radio, Telephone, Geolocated services, 
Roads, Airplanes, Emergency services, Mobiles, etc.). It is likely that 
there will be relations between such uniname and uninumber systems. If 
there is a layer violation of the magnitude of ".tel" or ".mobi" on the 
Internet side, dedicating a non defined name space to a restricted part of 
the numbering scheme, this will either delay the global digital convergence 
or keep the internet out of it.

4. We could say that a TLD is the common name of a (bootstraping) group of 
registrants [RFC 920] or of a non discriminatory [laws] specialized [RFC 
920] non protocol oriented [see above conflict with schemes] interest. So, 
".tel" (such as .aero) could be used by Telecoms people and organizations.

But it could also be used for domains restricted to telecom applications: 
ftp://ibm.tel would not work, only would tel://ibm.tel. Browser 
manufacturers would then default "ibm.tel" to "tel://ibm.tel" and prevent 
the use of "http://ibm.tel". We could imagine this could relate to service 
rates etc.
- this would be a major architectural addition to be discussed by IAB/IETF
- an RFC should be published on its technical needs (ex. support of the 
different economical models involved)
- this should be tested with IETF according to ICANN ICP-3 (reversibility, 
non-profit, open to the global community, no danger to existing operations, 
by IETF or other dedicated structures). In the WSIS context and due to the 
importance of the telephone area, this should call on an agreement with ITU 
(after ITU has created an Internet dedicated interface/sector able to 
adequately sustain relations with the Internet governances on such matters) .
That perspective could have a dramatic impact on the intenet and on the use 
of the telephone. I do think that it should then supported using virtual 
zones (meaning that such a ".tel"/".mobi" should be co-managed by telephone 
operators acting as co-registries). But before that the study of mobile 
application programming, relations, exchanges should be more advanced.

The "slippery slope" is here. Not with the request. But with ICANN BoD's 
possible response.

We are in a situation where the whole internet concept is at stake (spam, 
TCP/IP, IPv6.001 plan, cybersecurity, WSIS/UN/ITU). There might be a 
temptation of "fait accompli" by ICANN to try to force others (Govs, 
developers, operators, users) to keep the current internet os the core of 
the Information Society (technology and ICANN). We saw that with ".biz" 
when ICANN reported to the USG it did not create any risk. We see that with 
the current silence on IPv6.001 uniqueness and unique hierarchy.

IMHO this would only speed the development of alternatives to the current 
internet, with a dramatic impact on technology and on the telecoms and 
datacoms industries.

Is there a possible process and is there the time?

This is an habit of ICANN to establish dead lines and to use as an alibi 
they are bound by the lack of time they provide. "So what would you have 
the IETF say, and how would you propose organizing a process to approve 
such a statement, ideally between now and April 30?" tries John (now on the 
ICANN side :-).

The process may only be to follow on this post, to make John Klensin and 
the other BoD Members understand there actually are serious and even 
critical technical concerns involved in some propositions. They are gown 
boys. As John says, he has his own opinions. Let confort them.

ICANN's credibility is already at stake. Showing we understand that the 
Internet consistency and evolution can be at stake will only help them to 
take wise decisions. They (quite) did it in 2000 (not exciting, but not too 
harming). IMHO ICANN (or any single centralized organization) is not 
adequate to manage anything else than status quo (political as well ad 
technical): the only thing we should ask them is not to degrade it. This 
was John's and Vint's position about the RSSAC. This is Vint's position 
about the whole Internet.

Why to harm something which works ?
jfc

---

From: jfcm <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:43:13 +0200

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:29:03 -0400 (EDT)

> tel://ibm.tel adding to me ?

I have to digest the rest of this further, but I would say right away that
if I connect to http://ibm.tel, I'd probably expect to reach the VOIP
portal, where I could sign up for VOIP services from IBM.  I'd expect that
a voip connection to tel://ibm.com would get me to the headquarters
switchboard, and that tel://ibm.tel gets me to the VOIP switchboard (ie
VOIP customer service).

Similarly, I'd expect that tel://ibm.mobi gets me to the IBM Cellular
switchboard.

I recall that gte internetworking used gte.com for internal corporate
addresses and gte.net for customer addresses. Some companies use
subdomains for such purposes.  

		--Dean

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:29:03 -0400 (EDT)

--Dean

---

From: Markus Stumpf <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 21:16:53 +0200

> switchboard, and that tel://ibm.tel gets me to the VOIP switchboard (ie

Hmmm ... 
    For instance, Internet addresses ending in ".mobi" would allow sites
    built for the small screens of mobile phones.

From that reading I'd conclude they have no interest in registering
another domain like
    ibm-mobile
    miscrosoft-mobile
and so on, but rather have a new TLD where they could put
    ibm.mobi
    microsoft.mobi
and so on.

There is no need for a .mobi (and why the hell don't they use .mobile)
domain in order to deliver optimized web pages/sites.

IMHO all these have their origin in that the "semantic web" is at best
a slow starter and they try to put sematics into the web by adding
"semantic TLDs".

So in the future we will see a lot more sponsored requests for new TLDs
like >>insert index of yellow pages<<.

	\Maex

-- 
SpaceNet AG            | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0
Research & Development |       D-80807 Muenchen    | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299
"The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally
 proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin"

---

From: Markus Stumpf <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 21:16:53 +0200

Hmmm ... 

	\Maex

---

From: jfcm <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 13:34:06 +0200

Dear Markus,
to know where your remarks may lead, let come back to 1993.

>     built for the small screens of mobile phones.

For instance, Internet addresses (names?) ending in ".web" would
allow sites supporting "world wide web" screens.

Ten years before Jon Postel should have started with ".ftp".

>and so on, but rather have a new TLD where they could put

What about http://mobi.ibm.com
IMHO it fits with the right to left concept ? (and is in line with the 
structural semantics below). And costs nothing. And does not add any load 
to the DNS. Actually, I tend to think it is why the DNS was designed ?

>here is no need for a .mobi (and why the hell don't they use .mobile)

There is a very simple standard way: mobi://ibm.com - it calls for serious 
technical discussions.

>a slow starter and they try to put sematics into the web by adding

"Semantic web" is only DNC (Domain Name Confusion) unless it uses a correct 
grammar (oherwise there will be nothing to sell even for the worst 
merchant). Grammar says the protocol is in the scheme, the intefaces in 
upper level names, domain name in the SLD and the interneted network in the 
TLD. Initially the internetted neworks were physically or geographically 
separated (Tymnet, telenet, ARPANET, CSNET, DOD, Transpac, Datex-P, PSS, 
etc.) while now they are mostly virtual (.com, .fr, .us, .int, .aero). But 
there a TLD is the name of a group of users or the flag of their common 
global interest. Not the size of the screen they use for a few months.

This is precesily because because a name is to designate a lof of different 
applications and machines that it is called a "domain" name. Or should we 
propose ".80" for all the connections to port 80 ?

Let not kill something which works!

There is nothing against a sub-scheme like http-mobi://ibm.com. While the 
"mobi" demand is a grammatical error as a TLD, it is perfectly legitimate 
as a request to the W3C. If the motivation is the service of the users, 
this should be the IAB/IETF advice.

If the only motivation is greed and market control, IETF cannot comment.But 
it can tell how large common interest zones should be managed by multiple 
virtual zones co-registries - because IDNA will need it, to start with.

>like >>insert index of yellow pages<<.

Right. But RFC 920/1591 do not think of them as commercial private 
ventures. They think of them as directory members trustees. I feel this is 
wise thinking : IANA is not in the business of deciding what is a yellow 
page entry (people sharing the same interest or the same location - not the 
same salesman). But there are a few technical words to help them working : 
non profit, to the benefit of the global community, equal access for 
everyone matching the charter, registrants self-governance, no generic 
names for specific groups. To avoid conflicts, because conflicts are just a 
sign of the users confusion.

jfc

---

From: jfcm <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 13:34:06 +0200

Dear Markus,

jfc

---

From: Markus Stumpf <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 19:05:46 +0200

> to know where your remarks may lead, let come back to 1993.

You mean like in
http://ksi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/archives/WWW-TALK/www-talk-1993q4.messages/579.html

> >    built for the small screens of mobile phones.

This was a cite from the article, not my opinion!
If it wasn't clear from my posting: I am *against* those new TLDs.

> TLD.

You are talking about IMHO the syntax of URLs, I am talking about
    http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/
and
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?articleID=00048144-10D2-1C70-84A9809EC588EF21&catID=2
where people would probably stop abusing DNS domains as registers
for marketing, to reflect content in the domain name.

	\Maex

---

From: Markus Stumpf <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 19:05:46 +0200

You mean like in

	\Maex

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 20:41:25 -0500

Thus spake "Dean Anderson" <[email-masked]>
> > ...

You're confusing URI methods, protocols, and TLDs disastrously.

The "tel" URI method is for dialing using E.164 numbers, e.g.
"tel:+18005551212", which will probably be translated to a different URI via
ENUM.  For telephones using user/domain names, use the "sip" URI method,
e.g. "sip:[email-masked]".  There is no need for a .tel TLD, and adding
one ignores existing, logical solutions.

Likewise, there is no reason for a .mobi TLD; either mobile clients should
use the standard "http" method to negotiate the content/format/encoding with
servers as needed via HTTP's existing mechanisms, or if necessary a new
method/protocol should be defined, e.g. "wap://www.example.com/".

S

Stephen Sprunk        "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723           people.  Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS         smart people who disagree with them."  --Aaron Sorkin

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 20:41:25 -0500

S

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:04:01 -0400 (EDT)

> You're confusing URI methods, protocols, and TLDs disastrously.

I think it is you who is reading too much into the .tel and .mobi TLD.

These are not proposals to put URI method functionality into domain names,
but to qualify general business types, such as telephone companies, and
mobile phone companies.  This is no different from using .museum for
museums and .aero to represent aerospace companies.

The URI method tel: was a bad example, but otherwise completely
orthogonal to the intelligibility of using .tel and .mobi TLDs.  

Let me restate without using the tel: method:  

The URL

	somemethod://cellularone.mobi

Has a completely intelligible and meaningful interpretation. It is 
different from the following

	sip://cellularone.mobi
	http://cellularone.mobi
	telnet://cellularone.mobi
	etc.

Similarly,

	sip://verizon.tel

Is meaningful, and intelligible.

So what is the _technical_ problem with having .tel and .mobi TLDs?

A technical problem, for example, would be similar to the problem with
edu.com, which if you recall, was created back in about 1994 or so. If I
recall the problem, the dns searches from .com resolvers resolving .edu
hosts appended their search domains to the name being resolved.  So for
example, ksr.com machines trying to contact mit.edu first looked up
mit.edu.ksr.com., finding nothing, it tried mit.edu.com., and made a
request to edu.com.  Unfortunately, at the time, edu.com had a dialup
connection.

I see no such problems with creating .tel and .mobi TLDs.  It is not the 
case that URI methods can't share names with TLDs.  It would be fine to 
have a URI method of, say museum: if you could attach some sensible 
meaning to such a method.

> method/protocol should be defined, e.g. "wap://www.example.com/".

I don't think you understand the proposal for the TLDs.  .mobi is not for 
mobile _clients_. Its for mobile _Companies_

		--Dean

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:04:01 -0400 (EDT)

The URL

	sip://cellularone.mobi
	http://cellularone.mobi

Similarly,

	sip://verizon.tel

		--Dean

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:59:24 -0500

> museums and .aero to represent aerospace companies.

.aero was a waste of time, as the number of "aerospace" companies is so
small that most users won't even realize it's a valid TLD.  Ditto for
"telephone" and "mobile" company TLDs.  These are all far too specialized
for the cost of their introduction and use to be outweighed by any benefits
to the community as a whole.

Now, a single gTLD which would contain SLDs for particular industries might
be a worthwhile plan, but adding tens of thousands of gTLDs, one for each
industry niche, is plainly not scalable.

> So what is the _technical_ problem with having .tel and .mobi TLDs?

More importantly, in light of the human problems with that scheme in
general, what is the technical benefit of having them?  It won't reduce the
overcrowding in .com and .net, which IMHO is the only valid reason for
adding new gTLDs.

Either foo://tel.verizon.com or foo://www.verizon.com/tel is far more
expressive semantically than foo://www.verizon.tel.  The proposal _loses_
information expressed in the hierarchy: how is a user to know foo.tel,
foo.net, and foo.org are all the same company, and foo.com, foo.mobi and
foo.aero are a second company with no relation to the first?

> edu.com, which if you recall, was created back in about 1994 or so.
> ...
> I see no such problems with creating .tel and .mobi TLDs.

Of course there is; you risk collisions like tel.com, mobi.com, com.tel,
mobi.tel, tel.mobi, etc.  With a small, fixed number of TLDs the problem is
manageable because most operators will naturally avoid registering such
SLDs; each new TLD makes this increasingly more difficult.

> It is not the case that URI methods can't share names with TLDs.  It would
> be fine to have a URI method of, say museum: if you could attach some
> sensible meaning to such a method.

True, there's no technical conflict, but one must consider the consequences
in light of the humans using them.  Imagine a world with a "www" or "com"
method, or a "http" TLD -- user error would increase exponentially.  Users
cannot be expected to know why com://yahoo.http has no relation to
http://yahoo.com, and we should not put them in the position of needing to
unless there is no alternative.

> mobile _clients_. Its for mobile _Companies_

Equally bad, just for different reasons...

.tel and .mobi are exceptionally bad in combination since the two would end
up with nearly the same contents, given how the markets are so closely
related.

S

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:59:24 -0500

S

---

From: Markus Stumpf <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 22:26:38 +0200

> overcrowding in .com and .net, which IMHO is the only valid reason for

This is an urban legend.
No new TLD helps for the overcrowding, as all owners of trademarks
have to and will register their name and enforce delegation of the name
by law.
And the few domains that will be allocated in purpose only TLDs do have
their representation somewhere in another TLD also. .museum is a good
example, for it is mostly a redirection service (and each time I browse
the lists it is really astonishing how much names are allocated where
there does no DNS records exist for and how much museums (even really
big ones) you cannot find there)). And what do they do with the TLD?
They try to "abuse" (IMHO) the DNS as yellow book with cross references
and redundancies to geographical and "category" indices.
However they have already noted that this won't work, so they use google
to help others find the information they managed to loose. But it
doesn't work, as most large museums don't use .museum.

So at best a new TLD is something like a license to print money for
the registrar.

	\Maex

---

From: Markus Stumpf <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 22:26:38 +0200

This is an urban legend.

	\Maex

---

From: jfcm <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 01:28:09 +0200

At 18:20 28/04/04, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>In message <[email-masked]>, Dean 
>Ande
>rson writes:
>Sure there are.

yes. They are. And they do not make any technical sense that way.

We should make a clear response:
- these propostions are not acceptable as TLD
- please correct them as schemes propositions.

I confuse people enough with my Franglish grammatical mistakes to know how 
confusing it would be for people iI ICANN accepted a DNS grammatical mistake.

Unfortunately people wasted $ 50.000 in fear others could obatain ".tel". 
Good $ 100.000 bonus for ICANN. Last time they only got two TAF (TLD 
Application Fee) of $ 25.000. I understand no one from ICANN wants to say 
they will respect the DNS semantic: next time they may put the TAF at $ 
100.000 ....
jfc

---

From: jfcm <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 01:28:09 +0200

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:20:10 -0400

In message <[email-masked]>, Dean Ande
>These are not proposals to put URI method functionality into domain names,

Sure there are.  Here's a direct quote from the .mobi proposal:

	Businesses and consumers that utilise mobile devices will
	be able to take advantage of a wide range of Internet
	services and content under the mTLD that have been specifically
	tailored for access and use by mobile devices. The sponsored
	TLD provides a clearly recognisable mobile label to the
	services and content, indicating that they will be easy
	and convenient to use with mobile devices. By choice of
	suitable mobile-specific technologies, the service offering
	can be adapted to mobile-specific characteristics, such as
	the limitations of mobile networks and devices (throughput,
	temporary signal loss, etc), which will result in a better
	user experience for those services.

I find it hard to interpret that text in any other fashion -- they want
to describe end-to-end protocols by DNS name.

There are two proposals for .tel; here's text from one of them:

	Sub-domains of ".tel" may not be arbitrarily defined; rather
	they are defined in accordance with the ITU E.164 standard.
	A valid e164 domain name under the ".tel" TLD is defined
	as follows:

	Start with a telephone number: 1-212-332-1234.

	Remove all non-numeric characters: 12123321234.

	Reverse the order of the number: 43212332121.

	Separate by dots: 4.3.2.1.2.3.3.2.1.2.1.

	Add the sTLD:  4.3.2.1.2.3.3.2.1.2.1.tel.

That looks like an ENUM competitor to me.  (The other .tel proposal
looks like a generic TLD at first reading.)

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:20:10 -0400

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 06:21:20 -0700 (PDT)

% There are two proposals for .tel; here's text from one of them:
% 
% 	Sub-domains of ".tel" may not be arbitrarily defined; rather
% 	they are defined in accordance with the ITU E.164 standard.
% 	A valid e164 domain name under the ".tel" TLD is defined
% 	as follows:
% 
% 	Start with a telephone number: 1-212-332-1234.
% 
% 	Remove all non-numeric characters: 12123321234.
% 
% 	Reverse the order of the number: 43212332121.
% 
% 	Separate by dots: 4.3.2.1.2.3.3.2.1.2.1.
% 
% 	Add the sTLD:  4.3.2.1.2.3.3.2.1.2.1.tel.
% 
% That looks like an ENUM competitor to me.  (The other .tel proposal
% looks like a generic TLD at first reading.)

	Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

	This is -exactly- the tpc.int. model,
			  the e164.int. model,
			  the e164.arpa. model...

	in a phrase...  "lacks traction"

--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 06:21:20 -0700 (PDT)

--bill

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 09:58:00 -0400 (EDT)

> have to and will register their name and enforce delegation of the name

This isn't true. No one is required by law to register their trademark as
a domain name. 

> So at best a new TLD is something like a license to print money for

Ok. What's wrong with that?  If sponsoring organizations are willing to 
pay, they should be sold what they want.  Sounds like you are against 
commercialization.

So far, I still haven't heard a _technical_ reason against these TLD's.

  ** What is one thing that will break if these are granted?

  ** Better, what is the complete list of things that will break?

		--Dean

---

From: Aki Niemi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:12:07 +0300

> to describe end-to-end protocols by DNS name.

I don't quite see what the difference here is to .edu for example. Isn't
this indeed very similar to how the .edu provides a "clearly
recognisable" label for educational services and content?

Cheers,
Aki

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 09:58:00 -0400 (EDT)

--Dean

---

From: Aki Niemi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:12:07 +0300

Cheers,
Aki

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 12:18:27 -0700

> This isn't true. No one is required by law to register their trademark as

IANAL, but in my discussions with lawyers focused on trademark law, in
effect they are required. The perception that they are not defending their
rights effectively means they abandon them. 

> So far, I still haven't heard a _technical_ reason against these TLD's.

The technical argument here is flattening of the name space with the
associated concentration higher up the tree. There is nothing specific about
these strings, but why do they have any more rights than any other string?
Why shouldn't trademark owners be able to register the name
'yourtrademarkhere.', or anyone register 'yourpersonalfavoritestring.'? Do
you really think the root is the right place for all names? If not, what
technical characteristic differentiates strings that should vs. not? 

/flame-suit-on/ Rather than granting new TLDs, there should be an effort to
deprecate the existing non-cc TLDs and move everyone out within 3 years. The
historical artifact of a failed experiment is no reason to continue down
that path. 

Tony

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 12:18:27 -0700

Tony

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 20:35:27 +0100

> 	in a phrase...  "lacks traction"

So, place your bets on which slippery slopes ICANN takes us down...

I'm not convinced of a good argument for any of the proposed new TLDs to
be granted.   But I'm sure some/many will.   More money for ICANN...

This is the sort of thing ISOC should speak out on.

Tim

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 20:35:27 +0100

Tim

---

From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:08:43 -0700 (PDT)

> This is the sort of thing ISOC should speak out on.

doh! ISOC can't as they are the major benefactor from the .org divestature
from verisign.

sorry, try again.

-rick

---

From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:08:43 -0700 (PDT)

sorry, try again.

-rick

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 23:41:29 +0200

> rights effectively means they abandon them.

Defending their trademark doesn't necessarily mean registering every 
possible domain with the trademark in it, but it does usually mean 
going after other people who register a domain with the trademark in 
it. (Although there is always the slight problem that domain names are 
globally unique while very few trademarks are.)

> associated concentration higher up the tree.

So what angle hierarchy is desirable? Obviously a completely flat space 
isn't good because the zones get too large, but a very deep space isn't 
either as it takes more time to recurse through.

> historical artifact of a failed experiment is no reason to continue 

So what is the rationale for organizing ourselves based on our 
respective countries? If I may borrow your suit for a minute, I have 
another suggestion: no hard limits on TLDs, but every organization only 
gets to have a domain name in one TLD. So the practice of registering 
<domain>.* would have to end.

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 23:41:29 +0200

---

From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:04:06 -0700 (PDT)

> So, place your bets on which slippery slopes ICANN takes us down...

ICANN loves these "sponsored" TLDs.  It's the only kind they are presently
considering.  Sponsors generally have the cash needed to cover ICANN's
application fee (which is typically on the order of $35,000 to $50,000,
and is non-refundable even if the application is turned down or left in an
indefinite limbo of being neither accepted nor rejected) and any ongoing
tithes.  (Remember, ICANN's budget is growing towards $10,000,000USD per
year and that money has to come from somewhere.)  And the "sponsors"
generally have well a behaved and limited membership and are thus less
likely to burden ICANN staff with work and are less likely to get into
disputes (and lawsuits) with ICANN.

I personally find many of the proposed uses for these "sponsored" TLDs
rather silly and non-innovative - and they could well be done further down
the DNS hierarchy and their only reason to be at the top level is for the
prestige (and image marketing value) of having top level domain status.

There are a couple of things about this situation:

First, is that some of the TLD proposals before ICANN, such as .mobi,
might contain some seeds of technical harm to the net.  For example, if
the .mobi folks don't use their own intermediate caching resolvers and
rather allow all those mobile devices to go directly to the roots then
there could be an increase in the traffic going to root and other servers.
This could be exacerbated if those devices are frequently power cycled and
lose their DNS caches.  The .mobi folks haven't said that they are going
to do this, but then again they haven't said that they are aware of this
potential issue.

Second, the idea that a TLD categorizes all of the resource records of all
types found under that TLD seems to me to be wrong.  For instance, assume
there's a TLD called "blue". if an A record found under a.b.c.blue leads
me to an IP address on an interface, it is unreasonable to believe that
the only services delivered via that address are of a "blue" nature.  I
suspect that many people who want these TLDs think of the net only in the
limited sense of the world wide web.

Third is that, as Tony Hain mentioned, there is trademark pressure that
will eventually suggest to every big trademark holder that they ought to
be a TLD.  This may or not come to pass, but we can guess that at least
some of the big trademark folks will give it a try, particularly after
some of ICANN's "sponsored" TLDs ossify over time into de facto marks and
thus blaze a trail that trademark owners might want to follow.  And where
one trademark owner goes, the herd is sure to follow.

My own view is that we ought to be trying to shape the DNS tree so that it
is well shaped in terms of width and depth of the hierarchy.  I don't know
the metrics of that shape.  Have there been studies regarding the how the
efficiency of DNS and DNS caching vary with DNS label depth and zone
width?

As for uses of TLDs - my own view is that as long as they are allocated
only rarely then the few awards should go to those uses that contain the
maximum innovation, maximimum flexibility, and give the greatest value to
the users of the net.

But I don't see why allocation of new TLDs needs to be a rare event.

Personally, I want a lot of new TLDs, so that folks who have silly ideas
and silly business models can try em out and be given a chance to flop -
but this means that there needs to be a criteria to determine flopness and
to reap the failed TLDs so they don't become dead zones in the DNS
hierarchy.

And I think it ought to be a requirement that any idea proposed for a TLD
first be prototyped somewhere down the DNS hierarchy.

Anybody who wants a new TLD should have to pledge allegance to the
end-to-end principle (i.e. no new "sitefinder"s) and promise to adhere to
applicable internet technical standards and practices.

I also would like to start to break the semantic implications of TLD names
- I'd prefer that any new ones have names that are meaningless in any
language, like "ts4-0k7m".  Yeah this has been gone over many times - but
I still have this hope that with some nudging people will stop using DNS
as a directory.

		--karl--

---

From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:04:06 -0700 (PDT)

--karl--

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:27:18 -0700

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> it. 

Agreed, but given the reality of legal fees the cheapest way to defend a
trademark is to register it in every domain. 

> (Although there is always the slight problem that domain names are

While they are unique within the context of each registered country.

> either as it takes more time to recurse through.

A good research topic ;)   gut feel says 3-5, but YMMV

> respective countries? 

Trademark law is already aligned that way.

> If I may borrow your suit for a minute, I have

And nobody can register more than one domain per year. This would have the
side effect of slowing down the benefactors of the spammers. 

Tony

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:27:18 -0700

Tony

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 21:29:06 -0400

Hi.

While this discussion on the IETF list has been very 
interesting, it is probably worth noting that the odds of ICANN 
staff following the IETF list to the extent needed to pull out 
this thread and make use of it are not high.

Instructions for making comments that they, and presumably the 
evaluators, will see are at

http://www.icann.org/tlds/stld-apps-19mar04/stld-public-comments.htm

That page contains both addresses for making general comments 
and addresses for specific comments on each proposal, along with 
pointers to archives of comments made so far.

The comment period on the specific applications and forms closes 
on 30 April (see
http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-stld-rfp/new-stld-application-parta-15dec03.htm
).  If those of you who have been carrying on this debate want 
even a chance that your positions will be carefully considered, 
I suggest going over to ICANN's site and posting appropriate 
summaries.

     john

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 04:47:17 -0400

> recognisable" label for educational services and content?

.edu was an administrative distinction.  (So was .net, originally.)  The
intent here is clearly to distinguish the *use* of the name, not the
administration.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 21:29:06 -0400

Hi.

     john

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 04:47:17 -0400

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 08:49:04 -0400 (EDT)

> So what is the rationale for organizing ourselves based on our 

to match legal jurisdictions

Scott

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 08:49:04 -0400 (EDT)

Scott

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:14:56 +0100

> intent here is clearly to distinguish the *use* of the name, not the

The .edu is a (perpetuated) anachronism like .com.  You could ask the US 
universities to rename to .ac.us tree - good luck! :)   

It's interesting how some countries sub-delegate (like the UK, to .co.uk,
.ac.uk, .gov.uk, .ltd.uk, .org.uk, etc) and others do not.   Doing so 
allows some more headroom in namespace, but not all such sub-delegations
are exactly policed for validity.

tim

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:14:56 +0100

tim