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

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 17:49:24 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Joe Touch wrote:
> > What difference does it make to the IETF whether there are more TLD's or
> > less?
> 
> Nothing in general; what matters, as jfc already put very well, is that 
> these particular TLDs are acting in place of a function that is already 
> provided by the protocol field.

Ok. So the difference is that mobi and tel indicate an application
function, whereas net, com, cc, biz, info, museum, org, etc tend to
indicate business/organiation function? (leaving out country codes--which
indicate locale)

Is it sensible to think of tel and mobi as business functions?

		--Dean

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

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 17:49:24 -0400 (EDT)

--Dean

---

From: jfcm <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:33:27 +0200

>Is it sensible to think of tel and mobi as business functions?

Absolutely yes. As I noted it, there are at least two possiblities:
- .tel is accepted as the TLD of the ITU-T Sector's members. The same as 
for .aero. And .mobi is for all the companies, services, designers 
interested in mobile product, services etc.
- .tel is reserved to a class of users froming an "externet", ie. a class 
of users with special relations/access terms. This can be an economical 
model (rates), this can be a way of behaving (accepting or not VoSpam), 
etc. This however calls for a large number of new architectural concepts 
and naming semantic to be discussed and agreed upon.

But in both cases, it is likely it would then be premature to give away 
such mnemonics as "tel" and "mobi" before a wide debate. ITU expressed that 
in their letter of 2000 to ICANN. ICANN was wise to agree. I think not much 
has changed.

But would remain the IDNA aspect (LHS is not solved yet!),  the 
co-registry/virtual zone need to address the support of an _existing_ and 
generalized non Internet industry, and the real life feed-back. Do you 
really think non-US Govs, ITU, users, etc. will take ICANN and IETF 
seriously if they give away a $ 6 yearly tax on 1.3 billion mobiles and 
more telephone sets, managed by State controlled corporations or 
monopolies, to a single private US interest? If the root was the "joke of 
the XXth century" (European Gov top expet's comment), this would be the 
joke of the XXIth century.

The slippery slope is the risk that ICANN tries (or is put under pressures 
to try) that "coup" for political/commercial reasons. I think IETF is here 
to say where are the technical problems to prevent that temptation.

Another point, I did not rise, is that ".tel" and ".mobi" would obviously 
immediately lead to propositions such as ".tel1", ".mob1", ".phone", etc. 
etc. The size of the existing market and its technical sophistication would 
certainly push imaginations a lot and things IAB did not consider for 20 
years would be implemented in chaos in months. There would be scores of 
New.nets.

Just consider that ".sms" is the golden mine of today and is LOCAL. Any ISP 
alliance can start it today and build an externet (open virtual netwok) 
using ULDs (User level domains made of the alias couple of an SLD and of a 
local TLD) that will work very well.

IAB has not published an architecture for the internetting and ICANN has 
contained the number of TLDs. This has not permitted the world to get a 
technical reference nor to establish commonly agreed best practices. 
Nevertheless common sense remains until this may be corrected within the 
global convergence/stabilization of the digital continuity.
jfc

---

From: jfcm <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:33:27 +0200

---

From: "Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:42:38 +0100

Hi Folks,
  OK, I'll bite.
(i)   Have all of the folks commenting actually read these proposals 
all the way through (plus RFCs
       2916 and 2806, along with the drafts RFC2806bis, and RFC2916bis 
that will replace them)?
       Some of the earlier examples in this thread make me wonder.
       Note that by proposals, I mean .tel-Pulver *and* .tel-Telnic 
(they're wildly different),
       as well as the .mobi proposal. AFAICT, Pulver/NetNumber seem to 
be proposing a competitor
       to .e164.arpa, whilst Telnic are suggesting a name-based (i.e. 
phone numbers banned) registry
       to hold telecomms contact data. (I leave it as an exercise for 
the *Advanced* student to work
       out exactly what mobi-JV are proposing :)
(ii)  After the painful/protracted discussions that led to ENUM using 
.e164.arpa., the idea
       that we throw all of that away and start again with .tel (or any 
other TLD) is a BAD idea, IMHO.
(iii) The ITU is a UN organisation, and already has .int, so I'm not 
sure that there's an obvious
       justification for making yet another TLD available to them (quite 
apart from the organisational
       issues they have with actually registering any domains under the 
existing .int TLD).
(iv)  Regarding what mnemonics are used, and the ITU liaison to ICANN, 
it's illuminating to consider
       what was going on when the statement was sent to ICANN in 2000; 
the ITU had not at that point
       made any decision on how it was going to handle Internet use of 
telephone numbers, so this was
       a request for a block on anything that might interfere with that 
process. It's now 2004, and
       this process seems to be completing - we pretty much know what 
interferes and what doesn't.
       This, however, is a point for the IAB and the ITU.

all the best,
   Lawrence

On 23 Apr 2004, at 11:33 am, jfcm wrote:
> - .tel is accepted as the TLD of the ITU-T Sector's members. The same 
> as for .aero. And .mobi is for all the companies, services, designers 
> - .tel is reserved to a class of users froming an "externet", ie. a 
> class of users with special relations/access terms. This can be an 
> economical model (rates), this can be a way of behaving (accepting or 
> not VoSpam), etc. This however calls for a large number of new 
> architectural concepts and naming semantic to be discussed and agreed 
> upon.
>
> But in both cases, it is likely it would then be premature to give 
> away such mnemonics as "tel" and "mobi" before a wide debate. ITU 
> expressed that in their letter of 2000 to ICANN. ICANN was wise to 
> agree. I think not much has changed.
> <snip>

---

From: "Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:42:38 +0100

Hi Folks,
  OK, I'll bite.

all the best,
   Lawrence