|
Updated January 15 2021 Multiplexed Internet Domain Names
There are now 151 million .com names registered. Where will the next 150 million names come from? Occam's razor - multiplexed domain names are the fastest, easiest, cheapest, most equitable 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; national users often prefer country code domains. Domain multiplexing can be applied equally to any top level. 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.
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 in the US and isn't universal.
Universality - the same character meaning the same thing
regardless of TLD - is highly desirable for security and
interoperability. National or regional variants could facilitate the rapid application of name multiplexing however The Euro sign € provides 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 £. Other countries or
regions could standardize their own convention. We think improvement could/should be applied equally to all domains, but is needed most in the legacy .com and country code TLDs. Problems
solved by multiplexed names include: - 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. In principle, modern browsers that combine the address line and a search function already support the concept of multiplexed names. Would
this proposal grant Verisign, who run the .com
registry, an unfair advantage? No, since
this proposal treats all top-level domains
equally, user preference is the final arbiter.
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. Internationalized Domain Names were introduced in 2003! ICANN's
new generic Top Level Domains are not an
improvement, they don't support normal
users. When the US Department of
Commerce created ICANN their primary
concern was: Commerce never mentioned customer benefit or user demand. ICANN was built on supply side push - Internet users were never asked if they wanted thousands of new Top Level Domains. The results show they didn't. 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. More than 1900 ngTLD applications were submitted and over 1200 new TLDs have been delegated (made active) since October, 2013, but they don't solve user problems. Legacy
.com TLD continues to grow. The
number of registered .com domains is now
over 151 million. The 266 county code TLDs together add at least another 160.6 million registrations. How have ICANN's 1,200+ new generic top-level domains worked out? Not very well. - The total number of ngTLD registrations peaked below 30 million in April, 2017, and then fell below that for several years. Growth from November, 2019, pushed the count past 32 million (https://namestat.org/s/newgtld-summary) but the curve has gone negative since early March and is now around 25.4 million.- The ngTLDs lost 3 million registrations in the past 8 weeks. Legacy .com added 700,000 in the same period. - New generic TLDs are not a value proposition for users. - Failing to see value materialize, numerous organizations (at least 85 so far) have cut their losses and withdrawn or discontinued their .brand ngTLDs. Isn't it better to open the Internet by providing unlimited names under the TLDs users want, instead of the ngTLDs merchants want to impose? The
Internet Domain Name System was never designed
to provide universal naming, and that caused a
number of 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
the system not being designed to provide
universal naming. The World Intellectual
Property Organization has handled 50,000 name
disputes. That's not necessary. The basic problem: most people, companies and trademark holders can't use their own name 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. This was done when Internationalized Domain Names made it possible to use 'foreign' characters and scripts in domain names. Multiplexed domain names introduce a hierarchy within second level names. It's like adding street numbers to street names within a city. This makes the name-space under any top-level domain virtually unlimited. We need a new token character to identify/generate a hierarchy. We suggest the asterisk as a multiplexing token, together with a number or letter(s). Compare it to the accepted 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 * is the character indicating multiple use of the same name. The asterisk is often used as a wild card character indicating 'one of many'. The final number (or letter) indicates 'which one' 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. Aren't
domain names ICANN's responsibility?
Can't you just add numbers, or edit the
software already used to translate foreign
characters? When did it become appropriate to let organizations like ICANN and the IETF define the problems, create the solutions, and then universally sanction those solutions without competition or independent oversight? Multiplexed domain names are a technical step toward Universalized Domain Names. Multiplexed names nested with Internationalized Names 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 Internet access a human right? In that case registering your own name, under your preferred TLD, should also be your right. Otherwise you support a privileged minority owning their names and excluding the majority. Registering your own domain name isn't a problem when Everyone can be a Star. (Updated December 3, 2020) Multiplexed names are not offered as a supported product; we want to demonstrate how the Internet domain name system can evolve to eliminate unnecessary restrictions and provide relevant names for everyone. We 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. Multiplexed domain names under our test follow all applicable Internet standards, but the translation format used in our tests is not standardized. Last updated January 15, 2021 |