W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2012

Re: persistence of DNS names without new top level domain

From: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:48:08 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGnGFMKfdO5MsVqfvF4EH_pBr6MzaPVXOM+VCVVbyaj9nAsFUw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote:
> Comments on minutes http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/01/04-minutes#item01
>
> (s/what/what/)
>
> Re:
> <masinter> Doesn't ISOC run .org? Maybe just asking ISOC to offer some persistence guarantees for organizations that meet some persistence criteria?

It's run by PIR (Public Interest Registry). A search for 'pir isoc'
leads me to https://www.isoc.org/isoc/pir/  which doesn't tell me
whether PIR is an independent corporation or part of ISOC. Looks like
it's independent but with a board appointed by ISOC. and all excess
income going to ISOC. More information here
http://icannwiki.com/index.php/Public_Interest_Registry , etc.

The PIR approach was discussed at the workshop. We had tried to get
someone from PIR to attend but there wasn't funding for the purpose.

The way I see this discussion is: Suppose we decide to go forward with
this (and maybe we don't) - we will need to ask someone for some
favor. Maybe there are multiple options (IETF, ICANN, PIR, browsers).
So the question is, exactly what miracle do we want, and from whom? It
would be nice to move the discussion a bit farther along before
approaching PIR, although I now have a contact there so could probably
broach the subject.

I expect PIR (or whomever) would want to set the bar pretty high (such
as publication of an RFC?), since otherwise all of their domain
customers would be clamoring for the same favored status. The
interesting thing about the .arpa idea was simply that it provided us
with a candidate 'bar' consisting of community review, one already
used by IETF. Maybe PIR could use the same or a similar bar for
persistence under .org .

Nobody at the workshop was particularly advocating for the idea of a
new TLD, although it was discussed, as it's an obvious intervention
point. I think I came away with a better understanding of how
difficult it would be to administer and run a TLD, and of alternatives
to it.

> Note: I don't know where I got the idea that part of ISOC funding came from running some top level domain.  In any case, whether it is .org or   .net or something else and whoever runs it:
>
> The main point was to question the idea that getting a new top-level domain for "persistent" names was necessary or helpful.... you could just pick some existing TLD in a position to offer a different service level agreement.
>
> For a persistent namespace, you want a "forest lawn" contract -- like when you buy a cemetery plot or a cryogenics contract -- you want the provider of service to offer "forever" maintenance of the namespace you're getting, under circumstances that neither of you can predict.

Excellent analogy.

Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2012 16:48:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:44 GMT