- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 17:58:50 -0400
- To: Public W3C <www-archive@w3.org>
- Cc: 'www-tag@w3.org' <www-tag@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <37202954-A784-11D8-937D-000A9580D8C0@w3.org>
This message doesn't seem to have turned up in the ICANN archives [1,2] so I forward it this public archives. It is slightly edited version of the earlier message I sent to this list - a bit more about CSS, and a mention of support by the W3C TAG. Tim BL [1] http://forum.icann.org/lists/stld-rfp-general/ [2] http://forum.icann.org/lists/stld-rfp-mobi/ Begin forwarded message: > From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org> > Date: May 14, 2004 14:25:16 EDT > To: stld-rfp-mobi@icann.org > Cc: stld-rfp-general@icann.org, tag@w3.org > Subject: New Top Level Domains Considered Harmful > > This is a text version of http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/TLD as of the > time of writing. > > New Top Level Domains Considered Harmful > > In 2004 there were proposals to create new top-level domains which > included .mobi and .xxx. There are major problems with these > proposals. There are costs in general to creating any new top > level > domain. There are specific ways in which the ".mobi" breaks the > Web > architecture of links, and attacks the universality of the Web. > > At their 14 May 2004 face-to-face meeting, the W3C Technical > Advisory Group resolved to support this document, with Norman > Walsh > abstaining, and Paul Cotton recusing himself. > > Introduction > > When the Internet was being collaboratively developed by a > substantially technical community around a growing but still > manageable Internet Engineering Task Force, the Domain Name System > (DNS) evolved as a hierarchical solution to the problem of keeping > track of which computers had which Internet Protocol (IP) addresses. > The tree structure was an improvement over the previous flat space > of > host names. It reduced the chaos, by allowing new names to be > allocated in sub-domains without recourse to a central registration > system. Because the frequency of allocation of new names decreased > as > one ascended the tree toward the root, the actual cost was kept > manageable. > > As email and World Wide Web (WWW) use blossomed and became > increasingly important, domain names crept out of the messages > syntax > for Internet protocols and crept into daily parlance. It then became > valuable to own a short domain name. This turned domain name space > into a limited commodity. After some tussles for control (ongoing at > the time of writing) and some large amounts of money changing hands > in > some cases, the system has now settled down to a market-based one in > which names can be rented, transfer value can be asked by the old > owner of the new owner, and one-time and annual fees are typically > payable by any domain to any company managing the higher domain. An > anomaly was that unclaimed names were deemed to have no owner and no > value, and were allocated in a "first come first served" frenzy in > which speculators made great profits and held to ransom those who > may > have been considered the more logical owner of a name. This anomaly > created great instability. It has costs, in that any trademark owner > had to beware of parties who would register domains which included > their trademark. The Example Manufacturing Company had to ensure > that > it owned not only example.com which it had used for email and Web > site > for many years, but also example.net and example.org to avoid > unscrupulous competition setting up sites to benefit from Example's > excellent reputation. As the business grew, Example had to also > acquire example.fr and example.co.uk to ensure that confusion was > minimized. > > The fact was that the public memory was not for the domain name, but > for the brand name which was sandwiched between www and .com. To > this > extent, in the world of memorable domain names, the > hierarchicalization of the domain system had failed to happen. In > the > public's memory, example was the mark, and the difference between > example.com and example.net merely a source of confusion. > > As each node in the tree represents a potentially valuable asset, > control of any subset of the tree is valuable. Control of the entire > tree is managed by ICANN, which is set up to be a non-profit > international institution, with the intent that it should as such > carry the trust of the entire community in its efforts to manage the > system for the common good. Control of subtrees such as .net, .com > and > .org is delegated to set of parallel registries whose business model > is nominally the charging of registration and annual fees. There > have > been temptations for the registry companies to consider themselves > owners of unclaimed names. Rumors have abounded about systems which > would automatically rent a domain name about which a potential > renter > was inquiring, or would redirect traffic from an unclaimed Web site > to > their own Web site, and so on. > > The Cost of Change > > The top level of the domain name system, and to a lesser extent the > IP > address space, are the single weak, centralised, points of an > otherwise strong, decentralised system. The Internet is a net, and > the > WWW is a Web, but WWW and email use DNS which is a tree, which has a > single root. Although there are many benefits to a system with > global > identifiers, there are also costs, such as a single common DNS tree. > As a community we have all decided that the benefits of the system > (such as being able to quote example.com anywhere in the world and > have it mean the same thing) outweigh the costs of the social > systems > required to ensure fairness in its operation. There is, however, > great > stress. ICANN is under constant pressure to alter its balance of > power > or modus operandi. It balances technical, academic, commercial, and > governmental inputs. The whole issue of domain names has created a > vast amount of concern. And because the DNS tree is so fundamental > to > the Internet applications which build on top of it, any uncertainty > about the future creates immediately instability and harm. > > Our first instincts, then should be not to change the system with > anything but incremental and carefully thought-out changes. The > addition of new top-levels domains is a very disturbing influence. > It > carries great cost. It should only be undertaken when there is a > very > clear benefit to the new domain. In the case of the proposed .mobi > domain, the change is actually detrimental. > > The Economics of Domain Names > > In practice, for most domain name owners, the part between the "www" > and the top level domain is their brand, or their name. It is > something they need to protect. This means that in practice, a > serious > organization to avoid confusion has to own its domain in every > non-geographical top level domain. For a large company, the cost of > this may be insignificant. For a small enterprise, a non-profit > organization or a family, the cost becomes very significant. > > The chief effect of the introduction of the .biz and .info domains > appears to have been a cash influx for the domain name registries. > Example Inc. as mentioned above owns example.com, org and .net. Does > it also have to buy .biz, .info, and .name to avoid confusion and > the > misappropriation of my name by others? Will I have to also rent > "example.mobi" in case it want to make information available for > people who use wireless equipment? > > The market for second-level domains is a market for a limited > resource. After an unstable period when the first come first served > system was in play and greedy squatters grabbed domains simply for > speculation, it has now settled down. Introducing new TLDs has two > effects. > > The first effect is a little like printing more money. The value of > one's original registration drops. At the same time, the cost of > protecting one's brand goes up (from the cost of three domains to > four, five, ...). > > The value of each domain name such as example.com also drops because > of brand dilution and public confusion. Even though most people > largely ignore the last segment of the name, when it is actually > used > to distinguish between different owners, this increases the mental > effort required to remember which company has which top level > domain. > This makes the whole name space less usable. > > Is it fair to reduce the value of these domains which have been > acquired at great cost by their owners? > > The second effect is that instability is brought on. There is a > flurry > of activity to reserve domain names, a rush one cannot afford to > miss > in order to protect one's brand. There is a rash of attempts to > steal > well-known or valuable domains. The whole process involves a lot of > administration, a lot of cost per month, a lot of business for those > involved in the domain name business itself, and a negative value to > the community. > > Fairness > > As we have seen, the choice of a tree structure for domain names is > one which has costs and benefits, and the community currently > accepts > both. The cost of confusion, and of extra name registrations, is > high. > When the benefits of the new domain itself are small or negative (as > we discuss below), then one looks for incentive. The large amount of > money that has changed hands for domain names might lead a person to > suspect that this was the motivation. Under these circumstances, to > increase public trust, proposals from non-profit organizations would > raise less suspicion. > > The root of the domain name system is a single public resource, by > design. Its control must be for and, indirectly, by the people as a > whole. To give away a large chunk of this to a private group would > be > simply a betrayal of the public trust put in ICANN. > > Specific Problems with .mobi > > The different domains are introduced for different reasons, so we > must > answer this for each one. The [2]ICANN list of proposals gives > pointers to the proposals. > > [2] > http://www.icann.org/tlds/stld-apps-19mar04/stld-public-comments.htm > > The .mobi domain is described as being for the use of a community. > To > quote the proposal, the target community for the .mobi TLD is: > > * Individual and business consumers of mobile devices,services and > applications > * Mobile content and service providers > * Mobile operators > * Mobile device manufacturers and vendors > * IT technology and software vendors who serve the mobile > community > > This is in fact a mixture of reasons. It sounds as though there is a > use for ".mobi" when the provider of a service intends it to be for > the benefit of mobile users. There appears to be a desire to limit > the > use of ".mobi" to companies -- perhaps those in the group. > > This domain will have a drastically detrimental effect on the Web. > By > partitioning the HTTP information space into parts designed for > access > from mobile access and parts designed (presumably) not for such > access, an essential property of the Web is destroyed. > > Device Independence. > > The Web is designed as a universal space. Its universality is its > most > important facet. I spend many hours giving talks just to emphasize > this point. The success of the Web stems from its universality as do > most of the architectural constraints. > > The Web must operate independently of the hardware, software or > network used to access it, of the perceived quality or > appropriateness > of the information on it, and of the culture, and language, and > physical capabilities of those who access it [3]WTW]. Hardware and > network independence in particular have been crucial to the growth > of > the Web. In the past, network independence has been assured largely > by > the Internet architecture. The Internet connects all devices without > regard to the type or size or band of device, nor with regard to the > wireless or wired or optical infrastructure used. This is its great > strength. From its inception, the Web built upon this architecture > and > introduced device independence at the user interface level. By > separating the information content from its presentation (as is > possible by mixing HTML with CSS, XML with XSL and CSS, etc.) the > Web > allows the same information to be viewed from computers with all > sorts > of screen sizes, color depths, and so on. Many of the original Web > terminals were character-oriented, and now visually impaired users > use > text-oriented interfaces to the same information. > > For a time, many Web site designers did not see the necessity for > such > device independence, and indicated that their site was "best viewed > using screen set to 800x600". Those Web sites now look terrible on a > phone or, for that matter, on a much larger screen. By contrast, > many > Web sites which use style sheets appropriately can look very good > on a > very wide range of screen sizes. > > It is true that to to optimize the use of any device, an awareness > on > the part of the server allows it to customize the content and the > whole layout of a site. However, the domain name is perhaps the > worst > possible way of communicating information about the device. Devices > vary in many ways, including: > * Network bandwidth at the time, > * Screen size and resolution, > * Intermittent or continuous connectivity, > > and so on. While with the current technology, the phrase "Mobile" > may > equate roughly in many minds to "something like a cell phone", it is > naive -- and pessimistic -- to imagine that this one style of device > will be the combination that will endure for any length of time. > Just > as concepts such as the "Network PC" and the "Multimedia PC" which > defined profiles of device capability were swept away in the onrush > of > technology, so will an attempt to divide devices, users and content > into two groups. Small devices will have high bandwidth. Devices > with > large screens will sometimes have small bandwidth. Some "mobile" > phones will be permanently mounted on kitchen walls. The range of > digital assistants will continue to evolve. > > There are good ways to deal with and derive the greatest benefit > from > the growing diversity of client devices. The adaptation may occur on > the client side, the server side, or both. For example, the CC/PP > specifications provide a framework for a client device to describe > its > capabilities in great detail to a server. This is based partly on > the > UAPROF (User Agent Profile) specifications developed by the mobile > phone industry. Also, the HTTP specification has a content > negotiation > mechanism which allows a device to give a simple profile of its > capabilities whenever it asks for some information. Even when a > server > serves the same static content to mobile and fixed systems, > Cascading > Style Sheets (CSS) allows specific style information to be applied > by > hand-held clients only, allowing quite different presentations to be > displayed in the two cases. These systems, just a few of the > technologies which already exist, leaving aside those which could be > designed, are much more powerful than a top level domain name. > > The various documents about the ".mobi" Top Level Domain talk about > not only mobile devices but "mobile users" and "mobile businesses". > There is an indication that the mobile technology providers feel > that > while one is mobile, or when one is catering to a mobile customer, > one > is special or different. This may in fact be motivated simply by > attempts to increase the visibility of the mobile communications > supplier's name. It may be connected with a hope by the > communication > providers to gain some control of over information flow to and from > mobile users. This would be detrimental to the open markets enabled > by > the Internet. > > If neither of these motivations are the cause, then perhaps there is > an honest belief that being mobile will indeed be best when it is > visible to end users. In other words, the mobile communications > providers are expecting to declare failure. It is failure when a > communications system, in providing connectivity, becomes foremost > in > the user's perceptions. A travel agent should be a travel business, > not a "mobile business". In a reasonable world, the travel agent > gets > on with selling flights and not worrying about whether a customer is > attached by a wire. In a reasonable world, a phone is a phone and > the > particular electromagnetics used to connect it to another phone are > totally uninteresting compared to the fact that a person is > connected > to another person. > > Damage: Loss of Web Functionality > > But the point is not that a division into ".mobi" and the > ("immobile?") rest of the world is futile, it is that it is harmful. > > The Web works by reference. As an information space, it is defined > by > the relationship between a URI and what one gets on using that URI. > The URI is passed around, written, spoken, buried in links, > bookmarked, traded while Instant Messaging and through email. People > look up URIs in all sorts of conditions. > > It is fundamentally useful to be able to quote the URI for some > information and then look up that URI in an entirely different > context. For example, I may want to look up a restaurant on my > laptop, > bookmark it, and then, when I only have my phone, check the bookmark > to have a look at the evening menu. Or, my travel agent may send me > a > pointer to my itinerary for a business trip. I may view the > itinerary > from my office on a large screen and want to see the map, or I may > view it at the airport from my phone when all I want is the gate > number. > > Dividing the Web into information destined for different devices, or > different classes of user, or different classes of information, > breaks > the Web in a fundamental way. > > I urge ICANN not to create the ".mobi" top level domain. > > Tim Berners-Lee > > > Cambridge, Massachusetts, 14 May 2004 > > _________________________________________________________________ > > See also: > > [UW]: Berners-Lee, T., Universality of the WWW, Japan prize > commemorative lecture, Tokyo, 2004. [4]slides] > > [4] http://www.w3.org/2002/Talks/04-univ/slide1-3.html > > [WTW]: Berners-Lee, T. [5]Weaving the Web, Harper, San Francisco, > 1999. > > [5] http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/Weaving > > [IJ]: Jacobs, I.: [6]Why Using TLDs for Filtering is Ineffective, > Harmful, and Unnecessary Public communication. 2004 > > [6] http://www.w3.org/2004/03/28-tld > > _________________________________________________________________ > > [7]Up to Design Issues > > [7] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues > > [8]Tim BL > > [8] http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee >
Attachments
- text/enriched attachment: stored
Received on Sunday, 16 May 2004 17:58:58 UTC