Author Topic: TLD suggestions for Agent86's model.  (Read 11963 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline fluxer555

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 749
    • View Profile
Why not make new TLDs createable if there is enough demand? It could have a system where anyone can start a new TLD for free (as long as it doesn't interfere with any reserved words, like existing TLDs and large company names) and if enough people put money down for names under this TLD, then it is created and shareholders turn a profit. The best new TLDs will naturally pick up steam, as others will want a slice of that pie. Every name would be sold as an auction, so early 'squatters' of that TLD would just get outbid.

If .p2p (or .own or .dac or anything else) is desirable, the market will speak for itself.

Offline dbrock

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Although it's not 100% clear why TLD registration should follow a particular model and maybe Toast is right that selling TLDs is trying to do too much at this point. I'm beginning to see the benefits of starting out a bit more cautiously by simply selling names under one or a few specific TLDs... It's the least limiting strategy in terms of future options.

Offline dbrock

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
How about .P2P and .P2PTLD?

Offline bdnoble

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
    • Home Page
Fair enough on the omnibar concept.

But seriously, .own? Sorry arhag, but I would rather not have any association to the Oprah Winfrey Network. .web is great because it's generic and already means something. And I really like the idea of keeping around .p2p. Still siding with Toast on this one.
:)

Offline toast

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
For the record I'm against the TLD ownership perspective, I'm just trying to get people talking about TLD names =P

So we've come to ".web" - great. What happens if ".web" gives us too much trouble (it is like a squatted TLD that ICANN can't get figured out).
Perhaps ".we" ?
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
I suppose another way to ask this could be, "what is a good TLD to experiment the carrying-cost model with before it is upgraded to become the TLD meta-TLD".

So if your vote is ".web" then maybe eventually "google.web" would just be "google" while "google.own" would remain "google.own"

That could be a fair compromise. Obviously, if we do later make such a change, the price of names in the .web namespace are going to all drastically change. Most names would become more valuable. But some names like "key", "own", "localhost", "com", "org", etc. would drop to zero value all of a sudden.

Offline toast

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
I suppose another way to ask this could be, "what is a good TLD to experiment the carrying-cost model with before it is upgraded to become the TLD meta-TLD".

So if your vote is ".web" then maybe eventually "google.web" would just be "google" while "google.own" would remain "google.own"
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
I worry that this makes BitShares DNS less powerful than it could be. Big companies are soon enough going to be able to get desirable TLDs like .google, .facebook, .apple from ICANN. But in BitShares DNS the best that we will ever let them get is google.own or google.web? Convincing companies to join our system is already going to be hard enough.

I disagree with your opinion about the omnibar. Since chrome has been invented, when the average person types "Hercules" in the omnibar they want to search google for information on the movie or the historical character. I don't want to go to the website for the Bluetooth device. (Hercules.com) I certainly don't want to have to change any settings to search for anything.
Keep in my mind that if you type a search query with more than one word, Chrome will know you want to search and are not trying to type a URL. So if you type "Hercules movie" everything would still work just like you are used to even in my proposed model.  Personally I think typing a one word name into the Omnibar and going to the best website for that name (as determined by market prices) wouldn't be so bad. Think of it as the "I'm feeling lucky" option in Google search.


Anyway, if the community decides against leasing TLDs then at least my preference would be to have .own for the guaranteed-ownership model and .web for the carrying-cost model.

Offline bdnoble

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
    • Home Page
I disagree with your opinion about the omnibar. Since chrome has been invented, when the average person types "Hercules" in the omnibar they want to search google for information on the movie or the historical character. I don't want to go to the website for the Bluetooth device. (Hercules.com) I certainly don't want to have to change any settings to search for anything.

I agree with @Toast. I like the second method.


* I think having ".p2p" as the "meta-TLD / ICANN replacement" reads like a type error. Since you'd have to type the full sub-TLD every time, and it is unambiguous with just the sub-TLD, there wouldn't actually be any .p2p domains.
Agreed, there is no need for meta-TLDs.

* The "no TLD" default mode for our master sales model has usability problems because all browsers nowadays have omnibars (I use mine all the time). So whatever the master sales model is, it needs its own dedicated TLD.  Suppose just for this post that we call it ".agent"
I don't think this is as much of an issue as you are making out to be. In chrome, you can configure your search engines to use whatever keyword you want. By default, you can type "google.com<space>search terms" and it will do what you expect. But you can also set it up to be more convenient by going into Settings -> Manage search engines, and changing the keyword to say "g". This allows me to search by just typing "g<space>search terms". Since a space before the first / means the text in the Omnibar is not a valid URL to a domain, Chrome is able to know you are not talking about the TLD g.

* The solution where most ".p2p" names are from the agent model, but a few are reserved for other models, is also a mental type error. Imagine explaining "example.own.p2p was sold via ownership model, but example.pwn.p2p is a subdomain of a name sold via cost carrying model"
Do users really care which model was used to purchase a domain? Only the buyers should care about that. They can afford that slight mental burden in my opinion.
:)

Offline toast

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
* The "no TLD" default mode for our master sales model has usability problems because all browsers nowadays have omnibars (I use mine all the time). So whatever the master sales model is, it needs its own dedicated TLD.  Suppose just for this post that we call it ".agent"
I don't think this is as much of an issue as you are making out to be. In chrome, you can configure your search engines to use whatever keyword you want. By default, you can type "google.com<space>search terms" and it will do what you expect. But you can also set it up to be more convenient by going into Settings -> Manage search engines, and changing the keyword to say "g". This allows me to search by just typing "g<space>search terms". Since a space before the first / means the text in the Omnibar is not a valid URL to a domain, Chrome is able to know you are not talking about the TLD g.

I think it's a bigger deal than you think. There is absolutely no reason to break millions of users' habits, especially if we agree that there doesn't need to be a meta-TLD and so all domains explicitly end in TLD.

Quote
* The solution where most ".p2p" names are from the agent model, but a few are reserved for other models, is also a mental type error. Imagine explaining "example.own.p2p was sold via ownership model, but example.pwn.p2p is a subdomain of a name sold via cost carrying model"
Do users really care which model was used to purchase a domain? Only the buyers should care about that. They can afford that slight mental burden in my opinion.

It matters because it is totally unintuitive that a few special TLDs have different rules for "subdomains" - in almost every case "sub.name.p2p" and "sub2.name.p2p" are controlled by the same entity, but not in the case of "sub.own.p2p" and "sub2.own.p2p".  This matters to the user, not just the buyer.


Point is, we need explicit TLDs for each ruleset.

Let's get back to talking about:  What is a good TLD for agent's model?

You guys seem to want to use ".p2p" for agent's model and ".own" for the ownership model. I'd rather use ".p2p" for the ownership model and ".web" for agent's model, if we can use ".web" without trouble.
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
* I think having ".p2p" as the "meta-TLD / ICANN replacement" reads like a type error. Since you'd have to type the full sub-TLD every time, and it is unambiguous with just the sub-TLD, there wouldn't actually be any .p2p domains.
Agreed, there is no need for meta-TLDs.

* The "no TLD" default mode for our master sales model has usability problems because all browsers nowadays have omnibars (I use mine all the time). So whatever the master sales model is, it needs its own dedicated TLD.  Suppose just for this post that we call it ".agent"
I don't think this is as much of an issue as you are making out to be. In chrome, you can configure your search engines to use whatever keyword you want. By default, you can type "google.com<space>search terms" and it will do what you expect. But you can also set it up to be more convenient by going into Settings -> Manage search engines, and changing the keyword to say "g". This allows me to search by just typing "g<space>search terms". Since a space before the first / means the text in the Omnibar is not a valid URL to a domain, Chrome is able to know you are not talking about the TLD g.

* The solution where most ".p2p" names are from the agent model, but a few are reserved for other models, is also a mental type error. Imagine explaining "example.own.p2p was sold via ownership model, but example.pwn.p2p is a subdomain of a name sold via cost carrying model"
Do users really care which model was used to purchase a domain? Only the buyers should care about that. They can afford that slight mental burden in my opinion.

Offline toast

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
@arhag  here are some more thoughts about your proposed hierarchy:

* The "no TLD" default mode for our master sales model has usability problems because all browsers nowadays have omnibars (I use mine all the time). So whatever the master sales model is, it needs its own dedicated TLD.  Suppose just for this post that we call it ".agent"
* I think having ".p2p" as the "meta-TLD / ICANN replacement" reads like a type error. Since you'd have to type the full sub-TLD every time, and it is unambiguous with just the sub-TLD, there wouldn't actually be any .p2p domains. It would be either "name.agent" or "name.own", which are both implicitly "name.agent.p2p" and "name.own.p2p".
* The solution where most ".p2p" names are from the agent model, but a few are reserved for other models, is also a mental type error. Imagine explaining "example.own.p2p was sold via ownership model, but example.pwn.p2p is a subdomain of a name sold via cost carrying model"


In conclusion, I think this is the correct thing to do:

BlockchainDNS   ("decentralized ICANN")
    .own    ownership model
    .web    cost-carrying model
    .key     KeyID

But it seems like a shame to not use ".p2p" and so I think we should "waste" it, giving us these options:

BlockchainDNS
    .own
    .p2p
    .key

OR

BlockchainDNS
    .p2p
    .web
    .key


I prefer the 2nd one.
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline toast

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
I was thinking most of this evening and I came to the conclusion that agent's model needs and explicit TLD, that there should not be any implicit meta-tld, the "system name" should not be .p2p, and the global namespace should not have a mix of network- and user-managed TLDs. I will explain tomorrow.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
By the way, I would also reserve "localhost" on the global TLD namespace. It isn't strictly necessary since I don't think anyone would pay any money to lease a TLD that will be useless since every machine is going to be setup to override it to 127.0.0.1, but we might as well reserve it.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
But you're saying my request it's technically possible? - For a BDSN  browser extension to completely ignore ICANN .coms & .orgs & redirect users to our .com namespaces,  or at least our .com.p2p namespaces where the .p2p is always invisible to the user? Which may or may not be owned by the same people that own the domain names on the legacy ICANN system.

Sure, it's possible, but I think it's a bad idea. It's better for adoption (and less user confusion) if BDNS users using domains on legacy TLDs get to the same website they would get to if they were using a browser without the the BDNS extension. It is only when they use the newly created BDNS TLDs (leased using the carrying-cost model) or domains under the new .key or .own TLDs that they will take advantage of the BitShares DNS system.

Getting back to the Google example: a user Alice could always buy google.own in the auction by bidding the most; a user Bob could always register google as a KeyID if they were the first one to get it; and, a user Charlie could always bid the highest lease rate to lease the TLD google. The URL "http://google/" would take the web browser to Charlie's website. The URL "http://google.key/" would take the web browser to Bob's website. The URL "http://google.own/" would take the web browser to Alice's website. And the URL "http://google.com/" would of course take the web browser to Google's website. Now if Google decides they want to give this BitShares DNS thing a try, they cannot take over google.key, but they can take over the google TLD and also the google.own domain, if they are willing to pay for it. They can easily raise Charlie's lease rate until he is forced to give up the lease to Google. And, they can also buy google.own (if they even care since they would already have the more desirable TLD) from Alice (or maybe just threaten to sue her for trademark infringement if they can figure out her true identity).
« Last Edit: August 08, 2014, 03:23:11 am by arhag »