Re: COM names != US trade marks (was Re: Future of IANA)

[Havard.Eidnes at RUNIT.SINTEF.NO]

>    IETF can develope and adopt some technical shift in name
> search which can be more fitable with trademark principles. For
> exam, why the reason that any commercial seeking .COM? - there
> is the very fast way to find company by typing its trademark in
> browser, but current browsers don't search something like
> "trade-mark.fr" domain.

I think it is an often overlooked fact that the DNS is not a
directory and does not implement a directory service.  Trying to
use it as such does not necessarily make it so.  I think that the
attempts at using it as a directory is a major factor in
contributing to the current mess in .COM.

Further, I have a little difficulty in seeing how bending the name
registration policies of the DNS to cater for the needs of the
trade mark folks has much to do with the IETF, since policy in
general and DNS naming policies in particular have usually been
deemed to lie outside the scope of what the IETF does or should
do.

>   This issue was dropped with words like "It is the directory
> assistance (like LDAP) work". OK, fine idea but not everybody
> agrees with it.  It's looks like stock reliability - without
> working software few people buy it.

Agrees with what?  That a directory service should be provided by
using a directory service protocol?  Or that LDAP isn't the right
answer?  I have a hard time understanding why anyone would
disagree with the first one, there are probably reasons why folks
think the last one isn't the answer.  And no, I'm not a "directory
service protocol" person myself.  With that in mind I'll agree
with you on one point -- from my point of view there does not
appear to be any current operational directory service which could
supplant the DNS for the directory service aspects.  If my
viewpoint isn't entirely wrong, this *is* an area where the IETF
has some work to do.

Regards,

- Håvard