W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > February 2005

Re: Addressing the name speculation problem

From: Kitchen Pages <jrobinson@kitchenpages.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:08:10 GMT
Message-ID: <20050216.10081094.2220942065@home.kitchenpages.net>
To: uri@w3.org
CC: weibel@oclc.org

Hi Stu, I know its in the air but I kind of like the ideal expressed in 
regards to a TLD kind of system.
Are you suggesting something like the following, just as an example:
 
[1] Microsoft bin
[1] using Windows
[1] interface of Explorer
[1] scheme - file:///
1.1.1.1
 
[2] Borland bin
[1] using Windows
[1] interface of MyOwnBrowser
[2] scheme - file://
2.1.1.2
 
[3] Novell (suse) bin
[1] using Linux kernel 2.26
[1] interface of anotherBrowser
[3] scheme - file:/
3.1.1.3
 
If so; then I am +1 for such an ideal, or similar- Cheers :-)
With each paying a fee when at the interface level, except the last as it 
would go through a process of acceptance.
No reply needed.

Kind regards,
Jason
jrobinson@kitchenpages.com
 
 
----- Original Message ----- 
RE: "Weibel,Stu" <weibel@oclc.org>
Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>; <uri@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Addressing the name speculation problem

The Toll Gate Approach
 
A way I've thought about but have hesitated to suggest until now is put
up a toll gate that will inhibit speculation.  We currently charge
people nominal fees for domain registrations.  Why? Because there is
infrastructure that must be supported.  The amount is so low as not to
be an impediment to name squatting, but no one seems to have run out of
clever URL phrases in any case.  URI schemes are different... We don't
expect thousands, and one might argue that short names are much more
important than with URLs, so we think we need to protect the juicy ones.
Let me note that I think it is unlikely that we'll run out of juicy ones
anytime soon, either, but I don't have a strong conviction about how
serious the problem will be, and I agree it is prudent to anticipate a
problem.
 
What sort of toll will retard the speculative introduction of vanity URI
schemes while not unduly penalizing well-thought-out innovation?  Some
amount of earnest work and some amount of money are both considerations.
The work part might be an internet draft or similar documentation
requirement, and that is already part of the scene.  The money part
might be a registration fee (that could in turn be used to promote more
rapid evaluation of proposals.  What would a sensible amount be?  $1,000
USD? $2,000? $5,000? It is hard to tell if this would be a significant
impediment to squatting but I think it might be.  
 
Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2005 15:13:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:09 UTC