Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: new.net

  • From: richb
  • Date: Thu Mar 08 16:52:21 2001

William Allen Simpson <wsimpson@greendragon.com> wrote:
> In Spain, the City of Barcelona has trademarked barcelona.es, .com, 
> .net, and .org.  Excessive (in my view), but no surprise with the 
> actions of Llena.

This thread makes me wonder why the city of Boston didn't try to
grab Boston.com.  Perhaps they did, but the current holder (a large
daily newspaper owned by none other than the NY Times) has deep enough
pockets to engage in a lengthy battle.

The original holder of that domain was Au Bon Pain, based in Cambridge:
a croissant and coffee shop.

My $0.02 on the nature of naming:  this is just exactly like the 800
toll-free prefix.  As soon as 888 opened up, whoever held 800-FLOWERS
then had to reserve 888-FLOWERS.  (I recall trying to get a mnemonic
888 number, but gave up after learning that all the good ones were taken
within 60 days.)  Now there's 877 and 866.  The mnemonic names are, no
doubt, all taken by the same folks who got the 800 prefixes.

People who create a trademark want to have it protected globally.  It's
human nature.  We *want* a flat namespace.  If someone tries to spread it
out across a hierarchy, we instinctively use our resources to *grab* our
piece of the rest of the hierarchical turf.

Therefore any company which creates a broader hierarchy is not motivated
by what's best for Internet users, who are best served by a simple
hierarchy (IBM is IBM is IBM no matter what you append to it).  The
company is motivated by collecting a toll from those lawyers representing
companies who seek to grab their piece of the turf.

Corporate entities should be *required* to register in the flat dot-com
namespace, IMHO, and not be *allowed* names in any other namespace.

All DNS does is complicate network management.  Vadim's position is
extreme, but not too far off the mark.  Keep it simple, stupid, should
be ICANN's guiding philosophy on this.

Wonder how to implement this without turning it all over to the bureaucrats
at the US Patent & Trademark Office?

-rich





Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.