browse comments: WIPO RFC-2

WIPO RFC-2
mikej@sn.apc.org
Wed, 7 Oct 1998 07:57:37 -0400

Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Rangarajan.T.N.C: "wipo rfc-2"
Previous message: Viacom Inc: "WIPO RFC-2"

The Domain Name System was developed to simplify the process of naming computers and information resources using an administratively efficient heirarchical management structure which conveniently provides some important other functions:
1) DNS can help indicate the identity of the source of information or communication.
2) DNS can identify the geographic location of the source of the information or communicator.
3) DNS can allow for the identification of the type of user sending a message or accessing information resources (educational, commercial, home user etc)

Note that the DNS is being used for two main functions - a way of identifying users as well as for naming computer resources. It is also being used more explicitly as a trade-mark and intellectual property, however this issue must be considered within the broader framework of the needs for a DNS restructuring as discussed below.

Clearly in today's world, with the growing importance of e-commerce, advertising based information delivery and containing network abuse, the above functions are highly important. However the DNS can only provide this functionality if it is given useful information - the addition of erroneous information corrupts the entire DNS as it then becomes impossible to distinguish between the two. Unfortunately a clear set of rules for ensuring that the DNS only contains useful information was not established when the DNS was first implemented (like many parts
of the Internet, the use to which the tools are now put were not envisaged by the original designers). It is therefore necessary to institute a new system and agree on a set of rules so that there is a clearer understanding of the nature of each each an every domain, and that it is able to fulfill all of the functions described above. Furthermore, governance will be less of an issue once a clearly defined structure is in place.

There are three areas where there are the greatest problems and least clarity over domain names:
a) The distinction between many of the original generic TLDs (.com, .net etc) are unclear - one company may use .net, another very similar company may use .com
b) The distinction between the gTLDs and the ISO country code TLDs (.us, .ch etc) is also unclear - one organisation might use .com while another very similar agency might be registered under .uk.
c) Even worse, companies are being persuaded to register domains in every country and gTLD, 'in order to ensure control over their trade mark'
d) Country level TLDs are being used as generic TLDs - such as .tv and .tm, which undermines one of the basic principles in establishing the cTLDs in the first place.

One of the more problematic results of all of this is that it is currently not possible for the average user to be sure of the origins of a web site, and web publishers cannot easily obtain information about the locations of the people who access their sites.

Any new system devised to deal with the above will also need to cope with interplanetary addressing and at the same time must allow for the retention of national sovereignty, allowing each country to define its own naming structure. The new naming system must also continue to conform to its underlying heirarchical delegation principles allowing it to scale successfully by spreading the load of lookups as optimally as possible across the network.

The author believes the new proposed gTLDs (.firm etc) are a step in the right direction, but have not been taken far enough. The implementation of the new gTLDs with no other changes to the restructuring will simply exacerbate the above problems. What is suggested is something along the lines of the following:

1) Establish a completely new structure of gTLDs and Country level TLDs, allowing the old one to shrink away as people switch to the new more preferable system. Note this is not a software change, simply a more refined naming system. However for it to attract the appropriate level of trust, a concerted move toward more secure DNS protocols will likely also be required.

2) Incorporate the new proposed gTLDs in the new structure, but add the following:

2a) globalise (add languages) increase the number of the gTLDs available to perhaps 100-500 ? (this figure should reflect a more thorough study of knowledge/language and associative intellectual systems)

2b) Establish a rule that these domains and their subdomains cannot become the intellectual property of any single entity - they are a public resource. I.e no one can 'own' the subdomains of any particular domain. For example, if coffee.web is registered by then XX Coffees, then part of the registration process must commit that company to allowing anyone to register a subdomain beneath this - California Coffees may wish to register california.coffee.drinks - fine, and if Joe's Coffee shop in LA wants to register joes.california.coffee.drinks, fine too, ad infinitum.

3) Establish a new set of Country TLDs, which I suggest uses 3-letter country codes, but anyway a standard agreed upon by WIPO/ITU/IETF.
Adoption and management of these new cTLDs should be undertaken by an agency nominated by each national government. Then it is up to each country's highest authority to ensure the integrity of their domain. In addition, the need to pollute Country TLDs with generic TLD information will be reduced by the refinements described in 2) above.

4) As a refinement to the new set of Country TLDs, it could be agreed upon by the forum which nominates the national agencies to manage the new cTLD, that the a globally accepted subdomain (e.g .tm.usa) would be used for the registration of national trade-marks. While in general the division of the cTLD should be left up to the country administration, the structure of other top-level cTLD subdomains could also be agreed upon if it was felt desirable - for example np.TLD or ngo.TLD (e.g sierraclub.ngo.usa) could become an agreed upon standard for describing nationally registered non-profit agencies,.co.TLD could be used for registered companies, and gov for government departments, the problem is that language issues could bog this process down - has there ever been a better reason for adopting esperanto ? :-)

Yours Faithfully

Mike Jensen

 -- Posted automatically from Process Web site