Dear Mark

This is a great description and I believe for the first time that I am aware
of actually states the root issue.

What you have described here is essentially a cataloguing problem and not a
computer science or legal problem.  The problem we are encountering is, I
think, analogous to cataloguing a book for a library.  The domain name
system we have in place is effectively that only one book in the library
system can have the Dewey Decimal group, say 686.  What we need is a
function analogous to the Dewey system where books of the same or similar
title can actually sit side by side on a bookshelf and any 6 year old who
can read will not confuse them.  There are several unique identifiers to the
book ISBN and Accession Numbers (library specific)that are used as the
definitive identifier if you are trying to distinguish between two books of
the same title but by different authors.

The same situation occurs in spare parts where makers use their own systems
to number parts and it is quite common for different makers to use the same
number.  Although there is an attempt to put in place a standard on this.
However, you can uniquely identify a part by its maker and part number.

If you look at one of the most used parts cataloguing systems (NATO) it can
easily enable the codification of a part by country, give it a stock number
and anyone who uses the system (more than half the military world) do this
quite happily and without too much confusion.  It is quite an extensive
system but very well documented.  For example, an Australian soldier in
Afghanistan can demand a part from the catalogue that was catalogued in
France but is made in Italy and stored in Germany, and he/she will get the
right part - generally.

I have had a lot of experience in such systems and they can be nightmares to
use if not set up correctly.

Everyone is well aware, and probably sick of seeing me write it, that I
believe the current system is fundamentally flawed and wont work in the long
term.

The comments about things like auctions, generic words, ACCC actions, etc
should show to anyone that this approach is flawed. Yes, it will deliver an
outcome, but in so doing it is only to create a bunch of folks like me who
will be left with unfinished business.  The worst kind of legacy
relationship.  The only guys who will get rich are the lawyers, or is that
the real agenda!

When this approach was being looked at, did you get specialist cataloguers
(librarians, parts specialists, etc) to contribute to the process?  If not,
I strongly suggest that a cataloguer may contribute the new line of thinking
required.  If you did, then clearly their advice was ignored.  Did you
include other specialists like lexicographers?  I did in my research to find
that according the Senior Lexicographer at ANU that logistics was not a
generic word more or less than other words.  So who do I believe - the
specialist or MelbourneIT/auDA.  More to the point, who would a judge more
likely believe?

Now is the time to build a system for the future that is robust and
equitable.  If it means we have to go back to square one and start again,
that is ok.  It is beeter to do it right first time that try and repait the
mess that will happen.  The only reason it will work is taht folsk like me
will simply abandon Australain names and build on US based ones.

The auction as I see it, will probably create more problems than it will
solve.

I think Einsten said something like:  The level of thinking that got you
into a problem cannot be used to get you out of the problem.

The other analogy to this is the manufacturer of a machine.  For the sake of
discussion an engine.  The engine is designed to be used in a certain way
and under certain conditions.  However, a large group of people actually
like the engine but want to use it in a completely different way to the way
it was designed.  Does the manufacturer try and make the customer use the
engine the way it was designed?  Not usually, the design will be changed.

I am suggesting that we place a moratorium on the auction until we can
actually solve the problem.  I don't think we are anywhere near that at this
time.  We should put our energy into learning from the past, taking full
advantage of the expertise in this group, and building a model that will
work robustly and with equity and integrity.

All I want to be able to do is to uniquely identify my company by its exact
name, just like a book on the library bookshelf.  I really don't care what
the CALL number is, so as long as the address is unique to me and I can
spend 20 years building an identity that includes a stable electronic
address.  The analogy is 20 years after the book was catalogued I can stil
find it and 20 years after I gave someone a business card they can find me.
My physical address might change but my electronic address is unchanged.
So, www.logistics.abn.au is quite fine by me as the abn means it is the
exact word for an abn.  If you want www.horologistics.abn.au because that is
your company name that you chose to describe that you move clocks (probably
antique ones) then you can have it.  I accept this may not suit every one
but it should be an option, but I think it actually links closer to the OECD
requirement for the identification on ebusiness.  Who knows, maybe companies
will only want to deal with .abn companies because they know exactly who it
is without trying to work their way through the domain name process.  See
the domain name, straight into ASIC or D&B and away you go.

For what it is worth, if we cannot build a system of domain name allocation
based on precendence as a court would, on the balance of probability decide,
I think a possible solution is:

Create the catalogue code abn.  If you want to use your exact word or words
approved as a business name as your domain name you go into this catalogue
group.  Forget trying to make a .com catalogue group more or less
intrinsically valuable than a .abn catalogue group.  They are simply
(catalogue groups) CALL numbers and providing the address is correct, who
cares!  I am more interested in making sure that I can accurately identify
my company name in all things that I do, and not be dictated to by those
with circa 1500 word power skills.

If I can add my skills to building a better system, then call me.


Adieu

Adrian





===========================================
Adrian Stephan (Managing Director)
Logistics Pty Ltd
POB 5068
PINEWOOD  VIC  3149
Ph: +61 (0)3 9888 2366 Fx: +61 (0)3 9888 2377
akstephan§ozemail.com.au
adrian.stephan§logistic.com.au
www.logistic.com.au
===========================================


-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Hughes [mailto:effectivebusiness§pplications.com.au]
Sent: Thursday, 20 December 2001 17:05 PM
To: dns§lists.auda.org.au
Subject: RE: [DNS] auction question


> Cereal and Washing Power can
> appear as index terms on signs in a supermarket

Even this needs to be thought through carefully to when carrying the analogy
to the internet, and avoid another common dot-com mistake.

From the beginning of web time it has been immediately obvious to all and
sundry that the web is ideally suited for building indexes, starting with a
simple list of URLs.

This led to a gazillion people saying "I'm going to build a site (called
'hub', 'portal', etc - choose your jargon of preference) for this group"
(town, industry, sport, religion, etc - chose your group of preference).

And that all contributed to the demand for generic names:

"Gee, if I could just get 'car.com', I'd be able to build 'the' index for
the car industry, and everyone would come to my site".  This is particularly
true of geographic names - "gee, if I get 'wagga.com.au' I'd be able to
build 'the' index for Wagga".

Unfortunately, the gazillions of people all trying to do this didn't think
through the issues carefully - they didn't think thru:

* the barrier to entry issue
* the availability of equally effective names issue

Since the internet has low barriers to entry, and since there are always
similar domain names almost equally effective the end result is that every
group has half a dozen competing indexes.  umm, hubs, err, portals.

e.g. if 'something' is the generic name you're after, then the following
competing variants are almost equally useful:

 something.com.au
 somethingonline.com.au
 somethingnet.com.au
 somethingon-line.com.au
 somethingindex.com.au
 somethingonthenet.com.au
 somethinghub.com.au
 somethingaustralia.com.au
 somethingoz.com.au

If you replace 'something' in these domain names above with your favourite
generic word (cars, clubs, hotels, etc) you'll soon recognise that indeed is
what has happened on the internet today.

If the end result is multiple indexes to any group, then having the generic
name isn't really of value.  For example, suppose you want to go on holiday
to Town X.  There are multiple indexes in existence for that town - which
are you going to use??  You're going to look for an index that has form of
external legitimacy - in the case of tourism, that's conferred by the local
council or tourist bureau.  The index run by the tourist authority is in the
long run the one that most people will be more comfortable using -
regardless of its domain name.

Trust is an issue both on and off the net - as a factor in choosing between
competing indexes, it outweighs having a generic name.

To pick up on Bruce's original comment, he decides what supermarket to go to
based on its brand (that's a matter of trust).  While there he may use its
index to find the cereal.  Once he's done that, he buys a brand.  The
internet analogy is going to a domain name that is a brand you trust (e.g.
amazon.com), then putting a generic term into their search index (e.g.
'thrillers') then buying a specific book.



Regards, Mark

Mark Hughes
Effective Business Applications Pty Ltd
effectivebusiness§pplications.com.au
www.pplications.com.au
+61 4 1374 3959












---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
author, further information at the above URL.  (327 subscribers.)