Here We Go Again. 

ICANN will probably adopt new global top level domains (gTLDs) before year end. ( Network World, 3/6/2000 p.8) For an explanation of gTLDs , see OTE 1/99, The Internet: ICANN and Beyond. Companies with an established web presence want only a few, and the right of first refusal to replicate their .com URL (universal resource locator) as .store, .web, .firm, .nom, .arts, .info, and .rec. Domain name registrars, non-U.S. companies and others want hundreds of new gTLDs, without provision to protect corporate interests. Does any of this silliness sound familiar? (OTE 11/97: Yada-Yada-Yada.Com and OTE 12/98: What's In A Name?). What makes this different from the '800' to '888' SAC (Service Access Code) debacle are several important points:

1) The 'vanity' or mnemonic used to remember a toll free number, wasn't the underlying number. (The same number could 'spell' many things)

2) Numbers, by themselves, cannot be trademark protected. (Hence Intel abandoning X86 for "Pentium I, II, III)

3) The name of a company or product CAN be trademark protected. (OTE 9/99: Lost In Cyberspace?)

4) The routing instructions necessary to locate URLs don't rely upon letters anyway, but an actual underlying routing number. So the use, or non-use, of someone else's trade name does absolutely nothing to delimit the 'supply' of numbers or gTLDs. The number of 'addresses' in each gTLD - regardless of the spelling - is a function of something totally separate, the level of masking associated with Internet Protocol 4. 
[Class A license, [(256x256x256)-1], Class B license [(256x256-1] or Class C license (255).] Internet Protocol 6, currently under review, would allow many more 'boxes' or 'numbers', since ISPs and others would be responsible for internal routing or distribution.

Internet Taxation. (OTE 2/00:Taxes,Taxes) Seems more likely all the time. The good news, elimination of the 3% Federal Gross Excise Tax will probably accompany the change. The Federal Clinton appointees and some governors want taxation. Several business and the ACEC Chairman want no taxes. The critical business 'swing bloc' wants to eliminate Federal Excise taxes and will likely get their way in return for moving towards the internet tax group. Moving towards the taxers is more likely because of the pervasive [but flawed] view that any eliminated tax must inevitably be replaced. (http://www.computerworld.com/home/print.nsf/CWFlash/000313F6DA). 
     

Software Legislation (UCITA) Virginia Governor Gilmore (yes, the same one opposed to Internet taxes) signed into law the first state version of UCITA (OTE 7/99: 2B Is Not To Be) . Some states feel that UCITA will attract high tech and software firms. Ed Foster, writing in Infoworld 3/13/00, p.121 feels otherwise. UCITA seems to allow a 'state law of convenience', similar to some Delaware incorporations, which means whomever enacts the version most favorable to software companies will get the nominal registration. Secondly, UCITA will cover independent consultants. Hence, it would be foolhardy to employ a local Virginia company to write some code that would come with no performance guarantees. 
    

All Articles Copyright  2000 Hattrick Publishing Group ã

back to top