Subject: Re: COM names != US trade marks (was Re: Future of IANA)

From: Leonid Yegoshin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 12:20:31 -0800

>From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
>
>I can't believe we are having this debate again!  Let's recap the facts:

   Cristian, it is the argument that question did not exhausted by the
through away trade marks problem.

       [skipped]

>Is there something that the IETF could do?  Sure, it could design
>technical alternatives that would allow multiple roots, or that would do
>away with the DNS root altogether, or that would replace the DNS by
>something else.  But, frankly, I don't see the IETF as the right forum to
>debate name politics...

   IETF can develope and adopt some technical shift in name search
which can be more fitable with trademark principles. For exam, why
the reason that any commercial seeking .COM ? - there is the very
fast way to find company by typing its trademark in browser, but
current browsers don't search something like "trade-mark.fr" domain.

  This issue was dropped with words like "It is the directory assistance
(like LDAP) work". OK, fine idea but not everybody agrees with it.
It's looks like stock reliability - without working software few people
buy it.

				       - Leonid Yegoshin, LY22

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 23:41:37 +0100

>    IETF can develope and adopt some technical shift in name
> search which can be more fitable with trademark principles. For
> exam, why the reason that any commercial seeking .COM? - there
> is the very fast way to find company by typing its trademark in
> browser, but current browsers don't search something like
> "trade-mark.fr" domain.

I think it is an often overlooked fact that the DNS is not a
directory and does not implement a directory service.  Trying to
use it as such does not necessarily make it so.  I think that the
attempts at using it as a directory is a major factor in
contributing to the current mess in .COM.

Further, I have a little difficulty in seeing how bending the name
registration policies of the DNS to cater for the needs of the
trade mark folks has much to do with the IETF, since policy in
general and DNS naming policies in particular have usually been
deemed to lie outside the scope of what the IETF does or should
do.

>   This issue was dropped with words like "It is the directory
> assistance (like LDAP) work". OK, fine idea but not everybody
> agrees with it.  It's looks like stock reliability - without
> working software few people buy it.

Agrees with what?  That a directory service should be provided by
using a directory service protocol?  Or that LDAP isn't the right
answer?  I have a hard time understanding why anyone would
disagree with the first one, there are probably reasons why folks
think the last one isn't the answer.  And no, I'm not a "directory
service protocol" person myself.  With that in mind I'll agree
with you on one point -- from my point of view there does not
appear to be any current operational directory service which could
supplant the DNS for the directory service aspects.  If my
viewpoint isn't entirely wrong, this *is* an area where the IETF
has some work to do.

Regards,

- Håvard