Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Do domain names matter?

Expand Messages
  • Francis
    Below is my essay on the state of domain names, and generally the idea of naming entities online. You may recognize some of the text below from some of the
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 30, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Below is my essay on the state of domain names, and generally the idea
      of naming entities online. You may recognize some of the text below
      from some of the discussions we had here a few months back.

      For a permalink (with links), go to
      http://fhwang.net/writing/do_domain_names_matter.html .
      July 25, 2003

      Is it just me, or are we paying less attention to the Domain Name
      System than we used to? Seems like only a few years ago that the
      tech-culture world was attuned to every new angle in the ongoing
      struggle over the DNS' management. You couldn't read the front page of
      Slashdot without catching one heavily commented-upon story on alternate
      registries, trademark disputes, or the latest ICANN board meeting.

      But today? Hardly a peep. Not because the problems have magically
      solved themselves: The MPAA, for example, just sent a cease-and-desist
      letter to a blogger with the domain name www.ratednc-17.com. But a
      story like this won't draw the same attention it would have before. And
      by the way, what ever happened to those new top-level domains, like
      .biz, .info, and .name? Some of those are two years old and wide open
      for business—homesteads desperate for homesteaders.

      This could be simply a temporary development. If the economy picks up
      we might see an uptick in the number of dot-coms suing hapless
      webmasters, and our outrage might rise accordingly. Or maybe we've just
      been exceptionally distracted of late: ICANN pales in comparison to the
      new crop of acronyms—MPAA, RIAA, DMCA, TIA, USA PATRIOT—menacing us

      But perhaps these trends obscure a deeper shift. At the beginning of
      the boom, the vast quantity of people and organizations online
      outstripped our ability to find them, and we pressed the DNS into
      service to help fill that gap. But this usage of the centralized,
      permanent DNS conflicted with the common-sense methods that people use
      to name things in their everyday lives, and as the internet continues
      to decentralize this dissonance only grows stronger. The conflict is
      being alleviated not by technical or political reform at the center of
      the network, but by innovation at its edges. As end-user applications
      mature, they increasingly allow individuals to develop and share their
      own naming systems—not to destroy the DNS, but to render it irrelevant.

      The reasons that the DNS started to crumble under the pressure of
      commercialization have already been well documented. Writing in 1998,
      Ted Byfield noted that the DNS was never designed for that pressure in
      the first place:
      DNS was built around the structurally conservative assumptions of a
      particular social stratum: government agencies, the military,
      universities, and their hybrid organizations—in other words,
      hierarchical institutions subject to little or no competition. These
      assumptions were built into DNS in theory, and they guide domain-name
      policy in practice to this day—even though the commercialization of the
      Net has turned many if not most of these assumptions upside down.

      One of the assumptions Byfield is referring to is the notion that name
      collisions could be greatly reduced by dividing the namespace into
      top-level domains and trusting that everybody would calmly accept their
      place in that hierarchy. But as domain names became associated with
      trademarks, common usage flattened these tidy divisions into one
      undifferentiated sprawl. Corporations saw the web as one more front in
      the battle for marketing and public relations—like television, only
      with a keyboard—and accordingly they didn't care much for quaint rules
      written by computer scientists. So when, say, Archie Comics sued a
      California man for registering veronica.org in honor of his daughter,
      arguments that the .org TLD didn't belong to companies fell on deaf
      ears. (Online protest eventually succeeded where quoting RFCs had
      failed, although today veronica.org redirects to SamsDirect.)

      Many reformers aimed for a political solution, appealing to ICANN to
      keep the DNS safe for bit players. They felt that in kowtowing to the
      corporations, ICANN was bastardizing the simplicity of the system that
      Jon Postel had managed until handing it off in 1998. (When the final
      draft proposal for ICANN was finished, Wired called Postel "the
      Internet's own Obi-Wan Kenobi"—a phrase that would attain an eerie
      resonance with the Slashdot crowd when Postel passed away a month later
      and ICANN revealed itself to be a bit of an Evil Empire.)

      But would even a perfectly managed DNS have functioned in accordance
      with its earlier hierarchical vision? The hierarchy made sense to the
      users of the early internet, but the noisier commercialized internet
      would have fit much less comfortably into such a scheme. Even if you
      could've assigned every person, place, and thing its proper slot, most
      people would not have bothered to learn what went where.

      Take, for example, the .museum TLD, which has been open since 2001.
      Most prominent museums have avoided using this TLD; the Whitney, the
      Guggenheim, and the Museum of Modern Art all place their primary domain
      names under .org. Conceptually, .museum muddies the waters because it's
      not mutually exclusive with .org. And when it comes to marketing,
      .museum is a disaster since it only serves to distract the user—who
      ever heard of a six-letter TLD?—without making her life any easier.

      Or to take a more high-profile example, look at the recent lawsuit that
      forced the World Wrestling Federation to change its name to World
      Wrestling Entertainment. The World Wildlife Fund had sued the
      Federation for breaking the terms of a 1994 contract dictating who
      could use the initials WWF, in what media, and how prominently. Now,
      strictly speaking this wasn't solely an issue of domain names. The
      Fund's spokeswoman attributed the suit to an "explosion" of the
      acronym's use in three media: online, satellite TV, and cable TV. But
      one of the major grievances in the Fund's suit was the Federation's
      registration of the domain name www.wwf.com in 1997.

      According to the neighborly rules of the pre-boom internet, this should
      not have been a problem: The Federation got wwf.com and the Fund got
      wwf.org. This solution works if you care about those tidy hierarchical
      divisions. Most people don't. This is one of the reasons that the new
      TLDs have been so underwhelming: People don't see the world as cleanly
      divided into discrete categories, with the corporations in this corner
      and the non-profits in that corner. It's all one namespace to them.

      Mutually exclusive hierarchies are convenient, but they only work on a
      small group of items. Once that group gets too big and diverse—a comic
      book artist here, an airplane-parts manufacturer there—any hierarchy
      that might reasonably hold that group becomes too cumbersome for people
      to use. When people want to organize large groups of items they often
      find it easier to use overlapping sets instead. That's why filesystems
      have symlinks. That's why many of Apple's OS X programs, such as iTunes
      and Address Book, let you drag-and-drop your MP3s or contacts into as
      many groups as you want. Why bother fretting over whether you should
      put Christine from work in your Friends group or your Coworkers group?
      Put her in both and get on with your life.

      A hierarchical, precise DNS is a perfect system for computers. Human
      beings, however, prefer to rely on systems that make use of their own
      technical strengths, such as the ability to adapt their language to the
      preconceptions of your audience, and the ability to adapt their own
      conception of the world to accommodate new knowledge. Common sense, in
      other words. If, in the days when World Wrestling Entertainment was
      still a federation, you used the initials WWF in a conversation,
      chances are your listener would be able to figure out which one you
      were referring to. Humans do this by drawing on the context of the
      conversation to make the correct match. Are you talking about panda
      bears, or Stone Cold Steve Austin?

      In real life, people have almost no problem resolving name collisions—a
      good thing, considering how often they happen. There are two types of
      Dove bars you can buy in a supermarket: One is chocolate and the other
      is soap. There are three famous Dres in hip-hop: Dr. Dre of NWA, Dre of
      Outkast, and Dre of Dre and Ed Lover. Hip-hop fans know how to tell
      them apart.

      It happens on a personal level, too. In my freshman year of college, my
      dorm floor had four Mikes and four Daves. We resolved these name
      collisions by settling on nicknames for everybody: Big Dave, Sophomore
      Dave, Asshole Dave, etc. People who lived outside our floor didn't know
      who was who, but they didn't need that system anyway. We did, and it
      worked fine for us.

      What we didn't do, however, was make use of last names, even though
      they offer a more global, permanent method of differentiation. Last
      names were less memorable to us than the jokey, college-guy
      associations we could invent on our own. Clay Shirky wrote that the
      aims of the DNS are to be memorable, global, and non-political. "Pick
      two", he said, but in fact most of the time people only care about the
      first: As long as names are memorable, people don't mind that they're
      local and highly subjective. Techies are an exception, since they spend
      much of their time crafting language for machines, and as such are
      accustomed to treating language as a brittle, precise tool. But most
      people like their language loose and contextual, thank you very much,
      and the hierarchies of the DNS demanded a rigor that never seemed worth
      the trouble to them.

      Another source of pressure on the DNS was the system's shifting role
      from one that was primarily mnemonic to one that was meaningful as
      well. The difference is subtle, but important. Consider the phrase
      "Every good boy deserves fudge", which music students sometimes learn
      to help them memorize what notes correspond to the lines of the treble
      clef. The phrase is helpful, but its content—boys deserving fudge—has
      nothing to do with music. It's mnemonic, but not meaningful.

      The two can co-exist, and originally the DNS was a mix of both. A
      domain name like gandalf.cs.columbia.edu could give you important
      information—namely, that this domain is administered by somebody in
      Columbia's computer science department—but then, what does this domain
      do? Is it a mail server? A MUD? Knowing that somebody in Columbia's CS
      department likes Lord of the Rings is almost redundant.

      Originally the purpose of a domain name was to be an address that was
      easier to remember than an IP address. This changed during the boom, as
      users and companies developed the notion that the function of a domain
      names was to serve as a self-explanatory pointer to a discrete
      real-life entity—a writer, perhaps, or a corporation or a museum or a
      hacker's collective. Of course, this was never fully realized, and it
      made little sense if you weren't swinging for the big leagues of global
      name recognition. If your site was niche enough that you could make use
      of an odd URL like http://c2.com/cgi/wiki (the first wiki, hosted on
      Ward Cunningham's web server), then those awful domain name disputes
      were somebody else's problem.

      Today, internet services are becoming cheaper, more specialized, and
      easier to use, with the result that every day more people and
      organizations create a persistent online presence. And as the internet
      takes shape as—to borrow David Weinberger's phrase—small pieces loosely
      joined, the use of the DNS as a meaningful system is in further decline.

      In the commercial world, companies ranging from small retailers to
      leading credit card providers use third-party services to manage online
      bill payment or e-commerce checkout. In doing so, they happily give up
      part or all of their domain-name branding in exchange for technical

      Among individuals, of course, the most significant relevant trend is
      blogging. By some estimates there are already more than a million
      bloggers, and Lord only knows what those numbers will be like after AOL
      rolls out its blogging product later this year. Many of these bloggers
      don't have their own domain names. Instead, they're contained in
      subdomains (http://jwz.livejournal.com/), directories
      (http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/), and CGI arguments

      The meaningful DNS simply can't cope with a world of, say, 10 million
      bloggers, but luckily we have other ways to make sense of the internet.
      In the last five years, we've gained a number of powerful navigational
      tools, and these allow the DNS to pull back to a less high-profile
      role. The most obvious example is Google, which has done more than any
      other dot-com to make it easy to find your way around the internet.

      But Google is still a centralized service, and as such there are limits
      to how much it can help. There is more promise at the edges of the
      network, where end-user software makes it easier for individuals to
      name, remember, and share URLs. Some preliminary examples:

      * Subscribe to a blog's feed in your RSS aggregator and you might
      never have to type that blog's URL again.
      * Blogging tools decrease the amount of manual work that bloggers
      have to do to pass links along. The beta version of Google's browser
      toolbar even has a BlogThis button.
      * Apple's web browser Safari integrates with its Address Book to
      automatically bookmark the websites of your contacts.
      * Almost all email clients and chat clients will automatically turn
      URLs into clickable links, relieving you of the need to even

      None of these innovations are groundbreaking. But taken together they
      add up to an environment where users delegate to computers the dirty
      work of handling URLs. Consider, for perspective, this 1999 article by
      usability author Joe Clark:
      A long URL works poorly in stationery, in articles in the print medium,
      and in advertising (e.g., on TV, with its low resolution and the short
      time a URL can be shown, or on radio, where it must be read out loud),
      and is a usability disaster in one-to-one conversations. (That's
      conversations, as in voice, as in getting together or talking on the

      Today, this is still sensible advice if you're the webmaster for a
      Fortune 500 company or a popular dot-com. But for an increasing number
      of people, keeping URLs short isn't as important as it used to be. To
      take myself as an example: I'm relatively tech-savvy, and I create some
      sort of online content for a small, tech-savvy audience, so a short URL
      is much less important to me than it was only four years ago.

      Stationery? I write in my Handspring Visor more than I write on paper.
      Print articles? My site isn't mass-market enough, and my target
      audience probably reads most of its news online anyhow. Television
      advertising? I'd love to have that problem.

      And what about communicating a URL through speech? Personally, I find
      that this happens much less often than it used to. Maybe somebody will
      speak a URL out loud if she's referring to an easy domain name like
      half.com. But just as often she'll offer to email you that link, or IM

      A URL can be both text and a software component. You can write it out
      longhand, but if you put it in an email client or a chat client, it's
      as much a software function as the Undo command: Click on it, and your
      computer responds. It's functionality that can be serialized into text
      if that makes it easier to transmit. And if you and your social circle
      are never far from computers with persistent broadband connections,
      then it's simpler to treat that URL as functionality rather than text:
      Rather than spell it out over the phone, email it or IM it.

      Not that you should go making your URLs 400 characters long now.
      Shorter URLs are still better, or else why would we have those services
      that let you create a short URL to redirect to a longer URL of your
      choice? Notice, however, that the main purpose of these services is to
      facilitate the machine transfer of URLs, since some email clients get
      confused when handling a long URL.

      In fact, many of these services making the URL itself less meaningful,
      since they don't let you choose which key to assign to your long URL.
      Is http://tinyurl.com/6a2 a map to your friend's party? That PDA your
      girlfriend is considering buying? The CIA World Factbook's entry on
      Afghanistan? These short URLs—and, of course, the domain names they
      contain—tell you absolutely nothing about what they point to. You'll
      have to rely on context to figure that out. Your friend writes you an
      email, says "Here's that restaurant where we're meeting for dinner on
      Thursday," and includes a short URL below. The URL itself means
      nothing. It takes its entire meaning from the conversation it's
      imbedded in.

      If the DNS is fading in importance, it won't be a surprise to
      everybody. Byfield, for one, wrote that "DNS's level of abstraction is
      sinking relative to its surroundings." A year later, in 1999, Jakob
      Nielsen predicted the same, and with pretty good timing to boot.
      It is likely that domain names only have 3-5 years left as a major way
      of finding sites on the Web. In the long term, it is not appropriate to
      require unique words to identify every single entity in the world.
      That's not how human language works.

      Today, in 2003, this is what the future of the domain name looks like:
      For the major players, the system will remain more or less unchanged.
      There will always be a small cast of large organizations and companies
      who will have domain names with household recognition: ebay.com,
      fbi.gov, etc.

      But for the rest of us, we can increasingly rely on the fact that
      software is allowing users to build their own naming systems around
      their desktops, and then sharing and cross-pollinating those systems
      within their social circle. If you use the OS X Address Book, you can
      browse through your Safari bookmarks to find the link to, say, David
      Johnson's website. Which David Johnson? The one you care about.

      So as decentralization continues, we can largely ignore the frustrating
      world of the DNS and focus our efforts on other ways to make
      connections. We can work on establishing our own roles in communities
      that are intimate and deep, not broad and shallow. And we can think
      less about marketing, and get back to just communicating.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.