RE: Addressing the name speculation problem

I like the ideal you have expressed; and I am liking it more as it 
'grows'.
:-)
Thank-you.
Kindest regards,
Jason
jrobinson@kitchenpages.com
-----Original Message-----
From: "Weibel,Stu" <weibel@oclc.org>
To: "Kitchen Pages" <jrobinson@kitchenpages.com>; <uri@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 7:32 AM
Subject: RE: Addressing the name speculation problem
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?

stu

-----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:///
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 15:45:03 UTC