Jeff,
> > Why do you call it a parody? I identified a problem, outlined a
> > minimum-impact solution, and called for comments -- of which
> > there were, btw, zero (0).
>
> Opppps! You must have missed ours.
I guess I did -- The Digest seems to be dropping quite a few items
recently. If you have a spare copy, I'd like to read it.
========
Greg,
> > > Why don't you start practicing what you preach? Show us some
> > > evidence that renaming domains to difficult to remember character
> > > strings is somehow going to end virtually all of the domain name
> > > disputes, without severely impacting Internet usage. Why don't
> > > you write a real RFC documenting how you would make the requisite
> > > changes, rather than just a parody of one?
It may be worth clarifying that the RFC was not to *re*name
domains, but to extend the naming system. Existing domain
names would simply fall in the default 'ISO-8859-1' zero level
domain.
Two weeks later, I suggested the 'Grndl alternative' that serves the
same principal purpose (of *educating users to the fact that names
are merely names, and have no meaning -- or value -- other than
that which they themselves 'read into' them) although it doesnt do
much for the internationalization aspect. (On second thought, it
might give Czech and Polish nets a real boost!) However, again,
its not a question of renaming; existing 'legible' names will simply
have to tough out the Trademark War (although some kind of
amnesty might be provided by aliasing certain characters, so that a
(possibly contested) mypizzahut registration would appear as
myp#zzahut for some transition period). *New names (and new
trademarks for that matter) are the problematic area, as I see it;
am I wrong?
In any case, how is it so productive to debate who is going to
'capture' decision-making power when the kinds of decisions to be
made are not at all apparent? Or is there an agenda-promulgation
nominating committee (and an APSO?) in the offing?
kerry
