From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #21 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Sunday, February 27 2000 Volume 01 : Number 021 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 01:31:12 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 25-Feb-2000 Philip Sheppard wrote: > .biz which > will be second-class .com's You really believe that? I see .biz as being a lot more attractive than .com for many reasons, and I doubt any prospective registry would turn it down if offered. Competition comes in many forms. When the simple scarcity of domains for commercial use can drive an almost random 3 letter domain to be worth 6 figures (see dnspolicy.net for an example) I really find this types of arguments difficult to justify. I've had offers in the low 5 digits for a 3 letter .org domain I hold (and never listed for sale), one which has absolutely no commercial value as far as I can tell. I have a hard time with a lot of the arguments about differentiation and memorability when third level domain registries like the now defunct ml.org registry can garner over 200,000 registered hosts, and the dhs.org registry (formed by ex-ml.org staff members) has well over 50,000 in little more than a year of operation. At last count I was able to locate over 25 unique third level domain registries, some with as "uncatchy" names as dhs.org, ods.org, fdns.net, and my own box.hm. Offer the choice, consumers will choose what they do not like. TLDs that consumers have a hard time using will be unpopular for commercial purposes, and will be little used. But I doubt that .biz would have that problem. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: DSo Networks iD8DBQE4tkvg8zLmV94Pz+IRAh6rAJ9z/s3x6u2p/+AIvQOThMl54uB9PQCgmhfP vANr3IsO4TlPEfbm7YoiSoo= =V+H0 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 10:42:14 +0100 From: "Philip Sheppard" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Some reactions to the principles v5 Milton, thank you for your thoughts on the principles. I agree with almost all of your analysis. I am very happy to adopt your proposed wording for differentiation, competition and to delete findability. I have adopted your wording for semantics but it is a little passive. So I have added a phrase in line with the "no gTLD is an island" concept. I am not quite convinced that we can delete P1 on certainty because it is captured by P2 on honesty. I agree the concept is - these two are intentionally linked. P1 should not exclude gTLDs that do not stand for anything yet. There is not intended to be a temporal element here. If a gTLD purports to stand for an emerging idea or new brand that should be fine, so long as it does so. The idea is to avoid .cars being used for airlines (bizarrely) or more pertinently .kids being used for pornography or alcohol. Both uses would not necessarily be fraudulent and captured under P2. I will repost the principles with your amendments as described above. Philip ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 10:44:30 +0100 From: "Philip Sheppard" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Principles for domain names v6 Based on new input received here follows amendment 6 to the principles (which now number eight). - ------------------------------------------------------------- Criteria for assessing a gTLD registry operator application, subject to current technical constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should be based on all the following principles : Principles affecting the relationship between a gTLD Registry operator, Registrars and those who may register in the domain 1. Certainty: a gTLD should give the net user confidence that it stands for what it purports to stand for. 2. Honesty – a gTLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for malicious or criminal elements who wish to defraud net users. Principles effecting the relationship between Registries (and with relevance to Registrars) 3. Differentiation – the selection of a gTLD string should not confuse net users and so gTLDs should be clearly differentiated by the string and/or by the marketing and functionality associated with the string. 4. Competition – new gTLDs should foster competition in the supply of domain names and in the provision of Internet applications and services such that the authorization process for new gTLDs should not be used as a means of protecting existing service providers from competition. 5. Diversity - new gTLDs should foster the expression of views, both commercial and non-commercial. Principles with query resolution and character encoding implications 6. Semantics – registry applications for a gTLD should explain what meaning will be imputed to the proposed gTLD string and how the new gTLD will be perceived by the broad population of net users. Other principles 7. Multiplicity - new gTLDs should become available as needed to meet the needs of an expanding Internet community. 8. Simplicity - adherence of the above principles should not impose an overly bureaucratic procedure on a registry. Philip ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:37:04 +0100 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names At 10:01 AM 2/25/2000 +0100, Philip Sheppard wrote: >A competitor offering a me-too in .com2 is a follower, not a leader. First-to-market does not always win the long-term battle. In this case you might be right, but it is entirely possible that you are not. Customer requirements and flexibilities, in this market, are not nearly well enough understood to permit such definitive assertions. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:38:35 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names Phil, From your reply I conclude your offer of proof is to repeat the initial assertion, with a variation on the surrounding motivational persiflage, in the hope, or belief, that assertions, yours at least, contain their own tests for validity. Please take a seat on the WG-C bench for the uniquely gifted, joining Roeland Meyers (DNS operational stability by assertion), Milton Meuller (political and economic correctness by assertion), Matt Hooker (confusion by assertion), and a tedious lot of others. Cheers, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 09:30:28 -0500 (EST) From: Alex Kamantauskas Subject: RE: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Paul Stahura wrote: > I agree that the applicant registry proposes a gTLD and explains what > they envisage for that gTLD But won't that put restrictions on content? - -- Alex Kamantauskas alexk@tugger.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:33:47 -0500 From: bob broxton Subject: [wg-c] Straw Poll vote Question One: Option 3 Question Two: Option 3 Question Three: Option 2 I really would have preferred slightly different alternatives. In future straw polls and consensus calls, I request the members of the working group be given 48 hours to suggest additional options, or revised wording, of the alternatives. I want us to complete the mission of wg-c as quickly as possible. This 48 hour approach will allow the members to feel they had imput in the options that are the subject of straw polls and consensus calls. I also believe it will speed consensus. Bob Broxton broxton@erols.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 19:14:39 -0500 From: Paul Garrin Subject: (fwd) Re: [wg-c] STRAW POLL VOTE - ------- Forwarded Message From: Paul Garrin To: Jonathan Weinberg Bcc: Subject: Re: [wg-c] STRAW POLL MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <22883.951473081.1@mail.lokmail.net> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 05:04:41 -0500 > QUESTION ONE (write-in category) 5. Some gTLDs may have charters while others not, as determined by the registry offering services for the gTLD. A gTLD should not be required to have a charter that limits the universe of registrants who may register in the gTLD. > QUESTION TWO (write-in category) 5. There may be both chartered and non chartered gTLDs in the initial rollout considering that gTLDs are not required to have charters. Registries may elect to support chartered and non-chartered gTLDs. > QUESTION THREE > 6. Other (please explain). Existing new gTLD registry operators establish a testbed for a shared registry system for new gTLDs along with a plan for deployment of a large number of gTLDs supported by such system. ICANN may review the registries for technical and business compliance in the way that it presently accredits legacy domain ("com." "org." "net.") registrars. Selection of the gTLDs should be based on market demand and the best practice technical implementations that assure stability in the scaling of the DNS. - - --Paul Garrin - - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WG-C STRAW POLL > > Please respond before midnight UTC following February 21, 2000. > > > QUESTION ONE > Please select from the following possibilities, *as applied to the > deployment of new gTLDs in the name space over the medium to long term*: > > 1. All new gTLDs must have charters that meaningfully limit the universe of > people who can register in those gTLDs. > > 2. The name space should not include any new chartered gTLDs. > (Alternatively, if new gTLDs have charters, those charters may not place > meaningful limits on the universe of people who can register in the gTLD.) > > 3. ICANN, in selecting new gTLDs, should approve some chartered gTLDs and > some unchartered ones. (Alternatively, ICANN should require that all gTLDs > have charters, but it should approve some gTLDs with charters that > meaningfully limit the universe of people who can register in the gTLD, and > some gTLDs with charters that do not impose any such limits.) > > 4. ICANN should simply select new registries and leave issues of names and > charters (including whether to limit the universe of people who can > register in the domain, and if so how) to the new registries. > 5. Some gTLDs may have charters while others not, as determined by the registry offering services for the gTLD. A gTLD should not be required to have a charter that limits the universe of registrants who may register in the gTLD. > > QUESTION TWO > The working group has reached and reaffirmed a recommendation that the > initial expansion of the name space should consist of six to ten new gTLDs, > followed by an evaluation period. Please select from the following > possibilities, *as applied to that initial rollout*. > > 1. All of the gTLDs in the initial rollout must have charters that > meaningfully limit the universe of people who can register in those gTLDs. > > 2. The initial rollout should not include any new chartered gTLDs. > (Alternatively, any charters for new gTLDs may not place meaningful limits > on the universe of people who can register in the gTLD.) > > 3. ICANN, in selecting new gTLDs in the initial rollout, should approve > some chartered gTLDs and some unchartered ones. (Alternatively, ICANN > should require that all gTLDs have charters, but it should approve some > gTLDs with charters that meaningfully limit the universe of people who can > register in the gTLD, and some gTLDs with charters that do not impose any > such limits.) > > 4. ICANN should simply select new registries and leave issues of names and > charters (including whether to limit the universe of people who can > register in the domain, and if so how) to the new registries. > 5. There may be both chartered and non chartered gTLDs in the initial rollout considering that gTLDs are not required to have charters. Registries may elect to support chartered and non-chartered gTLDs. > > QUESTION THREE > The issue of chartered gTLDs is tied up with the larger issue of how ICANN > should select new gTLDs -- in particular, whether (a) ICANN itself should > be the final arbiter of new gTLDs' names and charters, or (b) ICANN should > simply select new registries and leave the choice of names and charters to > them. I think that at this point we can't avoid confronting the larger > question of how ICANN should pick new TLDs in the initial rollout. > (Actually, we're returning to the question; part of last summer's straw > poll spoke to the same issue. The results then were inconclusive.) Please > select from among these possibilities: > > 1. ICANN picks a set of registries according to objective criteria. > (Alternatively, ICANN narrows the set of applicants using objective > criteria, and chooses among the remaining applicants, if necessary, via > lotteries or auctions). Once chosen, registries pick their own gTLD names > and associated charters (if any), subject to a process under which ICANN > can resolve conflicts and can deem certain gTLD strings out of bounds. > > 2. ICANN, through a working group or otherwise, identifies a set of gTLDs > to be introduced in the initial rollout, and establishes names and charters > for those new TLDs. It solicits applications from would-be registries to > run those TLDs, and picks the ones it deems best-suited or best- qualified. > > 3. ICANN, through a working group or otherwise, identifies a set of gTLDs > to be introduced in the initial rollout, and establishes names and charters > for those new TLDs. It solicits applications from would-be registries to > run those TLDs, and picks those registries through a lottery or auction > process. > > 4. Each would-be registry proposing a new gTLD applies to the Names Council > (or to ICANN directly) for approval; if the gTLD is to be bounded by a > charter, the applicant must supply one. If the application is approved, > the applicant becomes the new registry, subject to its proposed charter. > > 5. Each person proposing a new gTLD applies to the Names Council for the > formation of a working group devoted to that gTLD (or to several gTLDs). > The working group identifies a registry/sponsor, and generates a charter, > for its proposed new TLD. If the gTLD is approved, then the entity > identified by the working group becomes the registry/sponsor. The identity > of the registry operator may be set for competitive bid (and periodic rebid). > > 6. Other (please explain). Existing new gTLD registry operators establish a testbed for a shared registry system for new gTLDs along with a plan for deployment of a large number of gTLDs supported by such system. ICANN may review the registries for technical and business compliance in the way that it presently accredits legacy domain ("com." "org." "net.") registrars. Selection of the gTLDs should be based on market demand and the best practice technical implementations that assure stability in the scaling of the DNS. - ------- End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 14:27:18 -0800 From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names No, not one that the registry hasn't already agreed to with the submossion. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Alex > Kamantauskas > Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 6:30 AM > To: Paul Stahura > Cc: 'Philip Sheppard'; wg-c@dnso.org > Subject: RE: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names > > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Paul Stahura wrote: > > > I agree that the applicant registry proposes a gTLD and explains what > > they envisage for that gTLD > > But won't that put restrictions on content? > > -- > Alex Kamantauskas > alexk@tugger.net > ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #21 *************************