[12632] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: About the creation of new 3-letter domain(s)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Barry Shein)
Tue May 24 23:30:41 1994
Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 16:38:18 -0400
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
To: sean@dsl.pitt.edu
Cc: paul@vix.com, com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9405240730.B10217-0100000@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu> (message from Sean McLinden on Tue, 24 May 1994 07:53:21 -0400 (EDT))
>From: Sean McLinden <sean@dsl.pitt.edu>
>> >Phone numbers aren't permanent, are reassigned so are not unique through time,
>> >and are not anonymous so do not protect the personal privacy of their user.
>>
>> Nothing is permanent, is it?
>
>No, but many things are a lot less transient than one's phone number.
Any rational discussion on naming systems has to be done in terms of
something which is better, not just vague assertions like that there
exist things which are less transient than your phone number. No one
would assert otherwise, your personal DNA code is less
transient. Would you like to try to use it as the basis for a domain
naming system?
Instead of focusing on vague complaints how about trying to couch
responses in: But if we used XYZ it wouldn't have this problem. OK?
It makes for much more fruitful discussion, in the end we have to use
something, and I doubt anything we might use will be 100% free of any
possible nit someone can dream up in the abstract.
>> If you want anonymity there's nothing to stop you from getting a phone
>> number from telco just for this usage and don't plug a phone into it
>> (heck, ask them if you could please NOT even have it physically
>> installed.) In many areas that would cost you as little as $5/month
>> for the privilege, and generally not more than around $15 or so.
>
>But why? Why not just have an arbitrary numbering scheme that isn't tied
>to someone else's model of commerce?
You can't call directory assistance to look up an arbitrary numbering
scheme.
You don't currently have 2-3 billion people using your arbitrary
numbering scheme and all the infrastructure associated with it
(directory assistance, CD/ROMs, anything else you might have which
lists a phone number.)
>The taxonomy of species is a lot
>more permanent than phone numbers.
So you are suggesting this as an alternative?
Details please.
>Or, you could have totally arbitrary
>roots such as fruits, vegetables, colors, mythological characters and
>worlds, and let people pick where they want to reside.
I thought we tried this and it doesn't work.
You're familiar with the current DNS conventions, right?
world% host red.com
red.com mail is handled by netcomsv.netcom.com
world% host blue.com
blue.com mail is handled by uu2.psi.com
world% host apple.com
apple.com has address 130.43.2.2
world% host muse.com
muse.com has address 165.227.33.1
world% host jupiter.com
jupiter.com has address 192.77.175.245
>> You could also make it unlisted but I think that would probably be
>> futile since you're using it as your domain name.
>
>Which is, of course, why those with unlisted phone numbers wouldn't want
>them broadcast to the world.
Which, of course, indicates you did not read the paragraph preceding
the one you responded to here so it's just a non sequitar.
>Sure, but let's assume that at some point nearly everyone with a phone is
>gonna want a fully qualified internet address. That means more than just
>getting a few left over phone numbers from the phone company, that means
>creating new area codes as well.
I'd assume the vast majority of them, particularly businesses, govt,
etc, would just use the phone numbers they have. That's part of the
strength of the idea, how many computers don't have a phone nearby?
But hey fax machines caused this huge increase in phone numbers and it
appears to have been survivable. Do you envision this causing more
growth than the advent of, say, fax machines and cellular phones?
Remember, you can re-use any phone number you have as a domain
(e.g. the phone number for your fax machine or modem would work fine.)
Or, more to the point, creating a situation that the PHONE COMPANIES
(note whose problem it becomes!) can't handle?
>Why don't we just create a taxonomy of all knowledge and use each branch
>as buckets. Each leaf is free for the taking but once someone has a leaf
>it is closed to others. We could use the Cyc project to identify the
>leaves and branches (might as well get *something* out of our investment).
Why don't we just agree you're being silly and really have nothing of
use to say to people on this list?
I really have tried to answer all questions sincerely, it would be
nice to think I would be treated in kind but apparently, failing
reason, some people think it's their duty to fill their messages with
raspberries.
If you don't like it for some vague and aesthetic reasons just say
*that* and stop.
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
