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

RE: Addressing the name speculation problem

From: Weibel,Stu <weibel@oclc.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:32:48 -0500
Message-ID: <8CC50D49B6828C4FBAB7DA1FCAB0526A271483@OAEXCH1SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: "Kitchen Pages" <jrobinson@kitchenpages.com>, <uri@w3.org>

Yes, with one possible additional twist, and that is that there be personal attributions associated with each endorsement.  That way, both the organization and individual are putting their capital on the line.  If Stu Weibel endorses FUBAR: and FUBAR: turns out to be fubar... Well, one's reputation is important... An organization's credibility is as well, but in a different way.  Accountability for each contributes to the whole picture.  Also reduces the likelihood that the same organization will persist in 'bad' behavior.

On a different thought, I've already thought of a forth possibly useful approach.  A supplicant would be asked to express three ranked choices for a token.  Decision lies with the IANA registrar, possibly under public advisement?


-----Original Message-----
From: Kitchen Pages [mailto:jrobinson@kitchenpages.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 5:08 AM
To: uri@w3.org
Cc: Weibel,Stu
Subject: Re: Addressing the name speculation problem

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:///
[2] Borland bin
[1] using Windows
[1] interface of MyOwnBrowser
[2] scheme - file://
[3] Novell (suse) bin
[1] using Linux kernel 2.26
[1] interface of anotherBrowser
[3] scheme - file:/
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,
----- 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 15:33:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:47 UTC