|
Updated August 3, 2022 Multiplexed Internet Domain Names
TLD .com has lost
registrations since April, and
remains below 160-million. Figures have been higher, but
ICANN's new generic top level domains have only gained 279,412
registration since April 14, 2017 (more than 5 years ago) and
now are below 30 million! Speculation has fueled
the growth of .com while the ngTLDs were created by ICANN to
create sales objects. Neither approach supports internet
users as long as names under each TLD remain exclusively
limited. Imagine that domain names are like towns and cities. Some top-level domains are huge, many are small, and some are definitely ghost towns. Each town and city has named streets and roads, but there can only be one street of any particular name in each town. In today's domain name system today, you have to own your own street to live in that city. Now imagine that several people or companies want to live on 'the same street' in the same town. You add house numbers to street names for each property. It means you don't need to own your street just to live there, you need a property address on the street. That's the simple, real life principle behind Multiplexed Domain Names. The concept and technology are simple. The idea isn't established for domain names the way it is for street addresses - but it provides the same advantages. Multiplexed Domain Names are the fastest, easiest, cheapest, most equitable, safest and most judicious way to solve complex domain name problems and provide any individual or organization with a short, appropriate, easy-to-remember domain name under their preferred domain top level. Generic name users want .com domains and national users often prefer country code domains, but domain multiplexing can be applied equally to any top level. There are nearly
160 million .com names registered. Where will the next
160 million .com names come from? Müller is the
most common surname in Germany, but there can be only one
müller.de Do you see the problem in this pattern? Most names, and even trademark terms, are not unique! The domain name system is hierarchical, Multiplexed Names add a hierarchical level within second level names. This extra level supports multiple use of 'the same' name without ambiguity under the same top-level domain. Examples could include name.com, name*1.com, name*2.com, etc. We suggest the asterisk as a multiplexing symbol since it is universally known and often means 'wildcard' - potentially 'one of many'. Inserting the asterisk in domain names requires a small code addition to browsers. That's because the asterisk, by design, is part of the character set that cannot be translated by the Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) software that lives in every web browser. An alternative, IDN-based solution is quick and simple but wouldn't work as easily in the US, and isn't universal. National or regional variants could facilitate the rapid application of name multiplexing. For example €, the Euro sign, could provide a simple multiplexing token for members of the European Union: examples could include müller€1.de, martin€2.fr, and so on. The UK could apply the pound sign £ for the same purpose. Universality however - the same character meaning the same thing regardless of TLD - is highly desirable for security and inter-operability. Problems solved by Multiplexed Names include: -
Existing domain names remain unchanged; no current owners lose their
domain names. - Anyone can get any name they have a right to, under any TLD. This respects the reality that most names, and even trademark terms, aren't globally unique. Companies, organizations and people can identify themselves by their familiar names. - No
one can buy and warehouse a domain name to prevent
it from being used, or to extract an unreasonable
price. Name speculation, which raises prices
by restricting access to names, becomes less
profitable. The
disadvantages include removing the
rationale for speculating in
domain names - but for internet
users that's a valueless
driver of name registrations. In principle, modern browsers that combine the address line with a search function already support the concept of Multiplexed Names. This
proposal would not grant Verisign, who run the
.com registry, an unfair advantage. User
preference is the final arbiter since all top-level
domains are treated equally. Domain names as we know them were introduced in 1983. The only major improvement since then was the introduction of Internationalized Domain Names that support characters and scripts outside standard ASCII English. IDNs were introduced in 2003, nearly 2 decades ago! When
the US Department of Commerce created
ICANN they
never mentioned
customer benefit
or user
demand. Their
primary concern was: The
DoC also runs the US Patent and Trademark
Office. They could have said:
"compete by inventing a better system" but
instead ICANN was founded and populated by
groups that supported launching new TLDs -
to give themselves a product to
sell. That's not public service. ICANN's new generic top-level domains: fiasco and farce; fraud? Legacy .com stubbornly remains just below 160 million. Not all county code TLDs report accurate registration numbers. How have ICANN's new generic top-level domains worked out? Not real well! -
The ngTLD
roll-out began in
2014. On
30 March, 2022, half the 1,154 ngTLDs followed
by ntldstats.com listed 10 or fewer registered
names, and twenty-seven
percent had
only 1 registered name. What's the
point? - The ngTLD-supporting community has been silent about the accuracy and verification of ngTLD registration data. What conclusions must we draw about the support community? Who registered all the 'expendable' domain names, and why? Were registries running a 'fear of missing out' ploy, hoping it would lead to additional domain registrations, or was it perhaps an attempt to create a false secondary market with inflated prices? Any well financed registry can pad registration figures to demonstrate its top-level domain is popular. Since ICANN earns 18 cents per registration, it is not in ICANN's interest to question the validity of registration claims. A follow-up question: how reliable are any registry statistics regarding registrations; can we believe the reported size of the market at all? Is it realistic that only 10 among 1156 new domains should account for 53.3% of all name registrations? The new TLDs aren't alone in presenting questionable user value. The ccTLD count presented in VeriSign's quarterly Domain Name Brief now eliminates .tk, .cf, .ga, .gq and .ml. They have been removed for presenting 'unbelievable' figures. Was this the kind of 'smoke and mirrors' competition envisioned by the Department of Commerce when it sanctioned ICANN? ICANN's multi-stakeholder governance has not prevented this abuse. Are problems with ICANN's domain names driving the growth of social media with different naming standards? The Internet Domain Name System was never designed to provide universal naming, and that has caused problems now so ingrained that most people accepted them as inevitable. Things as common as domain name disputes, name warehousing and auctions, and the drive to market unwanted new TLDs are consequences of a system not designed to provide universal naming. Most people, companies and trademark holders can't use their own names under their preferred top-level domain. The DNS is a technical system written to a technical specification. Problems can be resolved by extending the specification; Internationalized Domain Names show it is possible. Multiplexed Domain Names introduce a hierarchy within second level names. This makes the name-space under any top-level domain virtually unlimited. We need a new character to identify/generate a hierarchy. We suggest the asterisk as a multiplexing token, together with a number or letter(s). Compare the multiplexing token to the character that designates email addresses. MaratSade.fr could be seen as a domain name, but write it Mar@Sade.fr and you recognize it instantly as an email address. The same transparency can apply to domain names if an asterisk indicates multiple use of the same name. Martin*2.fr and Martin*5.fr would resolve as different, separate domains under the French country code domain. The asterisk is often used as a wild card character indicating 'one of many'. The final numbers (or letters) indicates 'which' of several users of the same name. Technically, names are registered
in a set format and translated by a simple
edge application to include the multiplexing
token. This is similar to, but not the same
as, the system used to generate foreign
characters and scripts in Internationalized
Domain Names. For Europe, the € character can be
used with existing IDN translation in the
browser. Aren't domain names ICANN's responsibility? Can't you just add numbers, or edit the software already used to translate foreign characters? See the answer to those and other relevant questions under: Questions and Answers (Updated February 1, 2022). When did it become appropriate to let organizations like ICANN define the problem, create the solution, and then universally sanction that solution without competition or independent oversight? Multiplexed Names nested with Internationalized Names would make Universalized names available to anyone, anywhere, in any language or script - under their country code, legacy, or preferred new generic top-level domain. Is registering your own name, under your preferred TLD, the same sort of universal right as having a telephone number? Or do we support a privileged minority 'owning their own names' and excluding the majority. Registering your own domain name isn't a problem when Everyone can be a Star. (Updated April 2, 2022) Multiplexed Names demonstrate how the Internet domain name system can evolve to eliminate unnecessary restrictions and provide relevant names for everyone. Multiplexed Names are not offered as a have no interest, past or present, in any domain registry, registrar, or re-seller. The combined URL address line/search field in modern browsers is ready to support Multiplexed Domain Names through disambiguation. Prototype Multiplexed Domain Names following all applicable Internet standards have been tested live. Last updated August 3, 2022 |