Discussion List Archives

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Fwd: TLD]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_HFKohDJli7BQj84V51PfLA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit


-- 
Howard Flack        http://www.unige.ch/crystal/ahdf/Howard.Flack.html
Laboratoire de Cristallographie               Phone: 41 (22) 702 62 49
24 quai Ernest-Ansermet             mailto:Howard.Flack@cryst.unige.ch
CH-1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland                   Fax: 41 (22) 702 61 08

--Boundary_(ID_HFKohDJli7BQj84V51PfLA)
Content-type: message/rfc822

Return-path: <owner-icsti-l@DTIC.MIL>
Received: from sc2a.unige.ch ([129.194.48.4])
 by sunny.unige.ch (PMDF V6.0-24 #44959)
 with ESMTPS id <0FVD005NIBM0S7@sunny.unige.ch> for flack@sunny.unige.ch
 (ORCPT howard.flack@CRYST.UNIGE.CH); Tue, 30 May 2000 12:25:13 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON by sc2a.unige.ch (PMDF V5.2-32 #37940)
 id <01JQ0EMQJX7K004O8M@sc2a.unige.ch> for flack@sunny.unige.ch
 (ORCPT rfc822;howard.flack@CRYST.UNIGE.CH); Tue,
 30 May 2000 12:25:10 +0200 (MET-DST)
Received: from dtics13.dtic.mil ([131.84.105.98])
 by sc2a.unige.ch (PMDF V5.2-32 #37940)
 with ESMTP id <01JQ0EMH9UOW004ZPS@sc2a.unige.ch> for
 howard.flack@CRYST.UNIGE.CH; Tue, 30 May 2000 12:25:09 +0200 (MET-DST)
Received: from dtics13 (dtics13.dtic.mil [172.16.105.98])
 by dtics13.dtic.mil (8.9.3+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA11379; Tue,
 30 May 2000 06:20:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from DTIC.MIL by DTIC.MIL (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d)
 with spool id 4593 for ICSTI-L@DTIC.MIL; Tue, 30 May 2000 06:20:26 -0400
Received: from mails.dtic.mil (mails.dtic.mil [131.84.1.19])
 by dtics13.dtic.mil (8.9.3+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA04912 for
 <icsti-l@dtics13.dtic.mil>; Fri, 26 May 2000 09:12:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sys723.dtic.mil (sys723e.dtic.mil [131.84.1.2])
 by mails.dtic.mil (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/990419cac) with ESMTP id JAA05725 for
 <icsti-l@dtic.mil>; Fri, 26 May 2000 09:12:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sys723.dtic.mil (root@localhost) by sys723.dtic.mil with ESMTP
 id JAA29334 for <icsti-l@dtic.mil>; Fri, 26 May 2000 09:14:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dticexch.dtic.mil (dticexch.dtic.mil [131.84.6.66])
 by sys723.dtic.mil with ESMTP id JAA29330 for <icsti-l@dtic.mil>; Fri,
 26 May 2000 09:14:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by dticexch.dtic.mil with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
 id <LHQSW17X>; Fri, 26 May 2000 09:12:47 -0400
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 09:12:40 -0400
From: "Molholm, Kurt" <kmolholm@DTIC.MIL>
Subject: Re: TLD
Sender: ICSTI-L list <ICSTI-L@DTIC.MIL>
Approved-by: crandall@DTIC.MIL
To: ICSTI-L@DTIC.MIL
Reply-to: ICSTI-L list <ICSTI-L@DTIC.MIL>
Message-id: <AB6780112626D211A6920008C7567CB2037BB2F7@dticexch.dtic.mil>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000

The issue of domains is a good one. New TLDs are inevitable. There are,
however, several points that need to be taken into account (and would
probably have to be discussed at the highest governmental levels in many
nations before discussing with other governments in an international
organization).

The apparent consensus is that there will be an expansion, but there are
different position papers on the details. Two conflicting recommendations
are for a slow, cautious implementation that allows for testing procedures
of new domain use or a fast, global expansion, with the idea that technology
is already in place to allow controlled registry and "whois" capability. One
primary rationale for the second group is that too slow an implementation
wouldn't alleviate the problems currently in place, i.e., companies and
organizations will still try to register any and all versions of a name in
the new domains or will grab a new top-level domain name that isn't truly
appropriate rather than wait. We couldn't find documentation for the
effective technologies that are supposed to currently be in place, and there
is an argument from the first group that they aren't available. Both
positions emphasis efforts to expand non-U.S. dominant domains and
differentiating between commercial and non-commercial sites. A
sub-discussion is the idea that "sex" or "porn" domains would allow for
easier filtering (or, conversely, easier access for those interested).

What will be the effect on trademark and intellectual property rights?
The major commercial heavy-hitters are pushing for "famous" names to have
the equivalent of trademark protection across all internet domains. The U.S.
Small Business Administration, among others, is opposed to the idea. Most
government entities on the committees appear to not want to tinker with
trademark status. There is also a perceived problem that the sub-committee
suggesting this in the WIPO is composed solely of intellectual property
rights lawyers or others with a documented interested in expanding
commercial property rights. This could possibly become a very divisive issue
prior to implementation of new domains.

On the issue of whether a .sci domain should be suggested, if a slow
implementation policy is adopted, the chances are that it would not be a
high-level priority given the general push of the effort. If a fast
implementation policy is accepted, questions would include:  how and why
would organizations decide to use it; who, if anyone, would determine if it
is an appropriate domain; would the government be receptive to its use in
the federal sector; and what benefit would Internet users get from this
separate domain?  This appears to be an issue that needs further study
before DTIC officially comments on it.

Aren't most publishers/distributors of scientific and technical information
part of a larger organization, which would be the more appropriate TLD?  I
can't imagine DTIC moving from .mil to .sci, and I would be very leery of a
large commercial publisher hiding behind a domain name shared by
not-for-profit concerns, university presses, or professional societies
(Elsevier.sci??).

Being a DoD/Military organization DTIC would probably be required to
continue using the .mil domain, and it would really mess things up if a
bunch of "military" sites adopted non .mil domains (such as the National
Defense University becoming a .edu).

Realize that ALL computers have numbers, whether we're a .mil or a .sct or
whatever we would still continue to use numbers, the domain names are used
for "human" convenience, there are certain number ranges that are "reserved"
for certain domains. So any changes to this would have to be coordinated and
planned. Will there be an expansion of TLDs, and, if so, how many, how
quickly, and how will they be determined?

Kurt
Kurt N. Molholm
Administrator,
Defense Technical Information Center
8725 John J. Kingman Road
Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-6218
Phone: +1 703-767-9100
Fax: 703-767-9183
kmolholm@dtic.mil


-----Original Message-----
From: Howard Flack [mailto:Howard.Flack@CRYST.UNIGE.CH]
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 7:45 AM
To: ICSTI-L@DTIC.MIL
Subject: TLD


  I copy you a short notice I read in the ISOC e-news sheet together
with the
  correct URL to get more useful information from ICANN.

  If ICANN goes ahead with new TLDs I wondered what might be the
interest for
  the scientific community and for the stm publishing community to push
for
  a TLD like .sci or .stm

  Any comments?

  See you in Columbus. H.

>
> * ICANN COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS CREATION OF NEW GTLDs
>
> A committee of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> (ICANN) has recommended the creation of new generic top-level domain names
> (gTLDs). Current gTLDs include .com, .net, .org, and .edu. The committee,
> the Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO) Names Council, recommended
> to ICANN's board of directors that a policy for the creation of new
> categories be formed in an effort to better categorize Web sites. The
> Names Council stated that new gTLDs should be introduced "in a measured
> and responsible manner" and that any new policy should try to minimize
> cybersquatting. For more information see
>       http://www.icann.org/dnso/gtld-topic-20apr00.htm
> (Wired News, 19 April 2000)


--
Howard Flack        http://www.unige.ch/crystal/ahdf/Howard.Flack.html
Laboratoire de Cristallographie               Phone: 41 (22) 702 62 49
24 quai Ernest-Ansermet             mailto:Howard.Flack@cryst.unige.ch
CH-1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland                   Fax: 41 (22) 702 61 08

--Boundary_(ID_HFKohDJli7BQj84V51PfLA)--

Reply to: [list | sender only]
International Union of Crystallography

Scientific Union Member of the International Council for Science (admitted 1947). Member of CODATA, the ICSU Committee on Data. Member of ICSTI, the International Council for Scientific and Technical Information. Partner with UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in the International Year of Crystallography 2014.

ICSU Scientific Freedom Policy

The IUCr observes the basic policy of non-discrimination and affirms the right and freedom of scientists to associate in international scientific activity without regard to such factors as ethnic origin, religion, citizenship, language, political stance, gender, sex or age, in accordance with the Statutes of the International Council for Science.