From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #22 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Tuesday, February 29 2000 Volume 01 : Number 022 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 23:14:37 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] straw poll results Straw poll results 29 people voted in the straw poll. To start with the raw scores: In question one, five voted for option one (usually with caveats); none for option two; thirteen for option three; eight for option four; and three for "other" (this category includes people who had voted for one of the options, but who wrote messages to me explaining their votes making it clear that they hadn't intended those options or making it impossible to tell what they intended). In question two, five voted for option one; two for option two; thirteen for option three; six for option four; and two for other. In question three, four people voted for option one; seven people for option two; one person voted for option three outright and two more explained that they favored this option for the initial rollout only; three people voted for option four; two people voted for option five outright and two more favored this option for the long term only; and ten for some form of "other." Some more useful results: (1) There was a strong majority in favor of the proposition that ICANN should play some part in choosing the new gTLDs. Nineteen people subscribed to some variant of this proposition, with eight urging the contrary proposition (that ICANN should choose registries wholly without regard to the gTLDs that the registries propose to run, and then should allow the registries to pick their own names and associated charters), and two splitting the difference. (2) There was a majority in favor of the proposition that the initiative, in selecting the new gTLDs, should come from the registries themselves. For the initial rollout, seventeen people subscribed to some variant of this proposition, with eleven urging the contrary proposition (that ICANN should first select the new gTLDs, and later solicit applications from registries to operate those gTLDs), and one being unclear. For the long term, nineteen people agreed with some variant of the proposition that the initiative, in selecting the new gTLDs, should come from the registries themselves, and nine urged the contrary. These two results suggest that the only recommendation that has a chance of winning rough consensus in the WG is the one recently urged by Sheppard and Mueller, under which registries apply describing their proposed TLD, and an ICANN body or process makes selections taking into account the characteristics of both the registry and its proposed TLD. This result did not attract a majority of those who responded. Only about ten people supported it for the long- term, and eight for the initial roll-out. But this proposal is the compromise middle ground between those who would have registries choose gTLD names and charters without ICANN involvement, and those who would have ICANN choose gTLD names and charters before soliciting applications from registries. The straw vote suggests that if we are to reach any form of compromise rough consensus on this issue, this proposal is how we will do so. I am going to issue a consensus call urging that the group adopt this compromise position, which is not *too* far from that of any of the respondents, and I strongly urge all of you to support it. We need to wrap this process up. (3) There was a strong majority in favor of the proposition that the process should have room for both limited-purpose TLDs (which have a charter that meaningfully limits who can register there) and general-purpose TLDs (which have an "open" charter that does not significantly restrict registration in that TLD, or, perhaps, have no charter at all). For the initial rollout and the longer term, at least twenty people endorsed this proposition (answering either that ICANN should select such a mix or that the registries should choose their own names and charters, which would in turn ensure such a mix). I'm going to issue a consensus call on this point as well. Jon ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 22:13:59 -0800 From: Kent Crispin Subject: [wg-c] Comments on the 8 principles In general, I think the idea of principles like this is potentially useful, but that the particular implementation is inadequate. >Based on new input received here follows amendment 6 to the >principles (which now number eight). >------------------------------------------------------------- >Criteria for assessing a gTLD registry operator application, "registry operator" is a technical function. A "registry operator application" should only be evaluated on the ability of the registry to provide the appropriate service, namely, support registrations for domains. Any registry operator that can provide service for one domain can provide service for multiple domains at a very tiny incremental cost, so linking TLD name approval to registry operator approval is pointless. Someone with a great idea for a name would simply contract the registry operation services to a qualified registry operator -- it would just be stupid to require that everybody with an idea for a new TLD must come up with a unique new chunk of technical infrastructure to support it. Therefore, registry operators should be approved completely independently from TLDs. Approval of a TLD name has no technical component -- it's essentially all policy; approval of a registry operator is fundamentally on technical, stability, and business viability grounds, and should be as objective and policy independent as possible. >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. In practice, a principle like the above can only cause people to argue about whether a string gives confidence to the average net user, or what something "purports to stand for". Neither of these arguments have any possible definitive resolution. Therefore, this principle is in practice useless. This principle is a glittering generality. Ditch it. >2. Honesty – a gTLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for >malicious or criminal elements who wish to defraud net users. Of course, of course. But this is simply another glittering generality that will send people down endless ratholes arguing about what "unnecessarily" means. >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. Confusion to net users is not something I look forward to arguing about, either. Moreover, as has been pointed out many times by people as diverse as Milton Mueller and Dave Crocker and Paul Vixie, the DNS is not a directory service. More directly, there is no obvious mapping from an entities characteristics to the domain name that entity might use. Therefore, this principle is largely irrelevant to the actual use of the DNS. >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. Sounds good, but the arguments concerning .com2, .com, and .biz don't bode well for this principle actually having any use for discriminating between TLD applications. >5. Diversity - new gTLDs should foster the expression of views, both >commercial and non-commercial. Sounds good. Of course, every new gTLD would meet this criteria. >Principles with query resolution and character encoding implications Eh? I don't see the relationship between "semantics" and "query resolution and character encoding". Especially the latter... >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. As has been pointed out repeatedly, the meaning or perception of a string across the broad population of net users is almost useless as a criteria. The TLD ".red" would mean something totally different to a Spanish speaking person than it would to an English speaker. Even more telling, there is work underway to expand the character sets supported by DNS. This leads to the possibility of TLDs like . [I'm told, incidentally, that "naa" in sound would most closely represent the Korean word for "myself".] We tend to forget that the ascii character set used in domain names is unintelligible to a large fraction -- perhaps a majority -- of the human race. Therefore the idea that TLDs should be chosen on the basis of their meaning to the broad user community is fundamentally flawed. The broad user community has no common view. >Other principles >7. Multiplicity - new gTLDs should become available as needed to meet the >needs of an expanding Internet community. Great. >8. Simplicity - adherence of the above principles should not impose an >overly bureaucratic procedure on a registry. What would be a meaningful definition of "overly bureaucratic"... - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:55:00 +0100 From: "Philip Sheppard" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Comments on the 8 principles Kent, thanks for your comments on the principles and your approval of some of them. I agree with your analysis re registry operator. The wording was not intended to link gTLD name approval to registry operator approval and will be amended. Certainty - I agree interpretation of this may be difficult in some instances but should be clear in most. It might stop for example, .kids being used for pornography or alcohol sites. The reason for "unnecessarily" in the honesty principle recognises that all new gTLDs per se increase opportunities for fraud but that this can be more blatant in some cases. It links to certainty. It might stop for example, .nike being registered for use by shoe traders who are not Nike (but may be fine for a gTLD intended for sites about Greek goddesses). You are right about the query resolution heading. This must go as we have now dropped the findability principle. I understand your comments on semantics but do feel that this principle as it is now worded presents a good discipline on a registry application to be aware of how the proposed gTLD fits into the world of gTLDs. It is not currently worded as grounds for exclusion. Philip ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:01:03 +0100 From: "Philip Sheppard" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Principles for domain names v7 Based on new input received here follows amendment 7 to the principles. - ------------------------------------------------------------- Criteria for assessing a gTLD application from a registry operator, 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. Other principles 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. 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: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 10:50:30 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: Re: [wg-c] Principles for domain names v7 As long as we're all chiming in . . . >1. Certainty: a gTLD should give the net user confidence that it stands for >what it purports to stand for. I understand this principle to mean that a gTLD registry must enforce the conditions of its charter, if any, against SLD registrants, so that the registry must refuse or delete the SLD registration of an entity that uses, or would use, the registration in a way inconsistent with "what [the gTLD] purports to stand for." It also means, I assume, that ICANN should take some sort of action against a gTLD that fails to engage in such enforcement. (If the principle doesn't mean those two things, I don't think it means anything.) This sort of monitoring is expensive. In some cases, it's relatively uncontroversial; as Philip has suggested, it's not unreasonable to require a gTLD marketing itself as .kids to enforce a policy that its registrants may not put up web sites under the TLD marketing porn. In other cases, OTOH, its costs may outweigh its benefits. If a registry sets up .automobiles for folks who are in some way associated with the automobile world, I think think there's any need for the registry to screen registrants -- who else would want to register in that TLD? If the answer is that the intended meaning of the principle isn't to require the proprietor of .automobiles to screen registrants, but only to impose some appropriate monitoring/screening requirement on .kids, then I think it would be useful to find wording that more precisely captures the class of cases to which the principle would apply. >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. This principle has been tweaked quite a bit, to the point where it seems to me somewhat unclear; I suspect that different people could read the language and come away with different understandings of its meaning. (That may be a virtue.) >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. I think Kent's point here is unavoidable. Applicants for a TLD intelligible only in Chinese will not be proposing a TLD whose meaning is perceptible by "the broad population of net users." Indeed, we may soon reach the point where, if applicants couch their explanation in terms of the English-language significance of the string, then they still won't be describing the perceptions of "the broad population of net users," b/c the broad population of Net users won't speak English. Perhaps "and how the new gTLD will be perceived by the relevant population of net users"? >7. Multiplicity - new gTLDs should become available as needed to meet the >needs of an expanding Internet community. In the long run, it seems to me, ICANN should not seek to limit the total number of gTLDs short of the bounds of the technically feasible and operationally stable. A substantial majority of the people who signed the Interim Report's various position papers agreed. But this principle, it seems to me, implies the opposite: It suggests that, looking to the long term, the proponent of a new gTLD will always have the burden of showing that "new gTLDs . . . [are] needed" before it can begin to make its case that its proposed TLD should be added to the root. When a proposal for a new TLD is made, it would be appropriate under this principle for an opponent to counter that the new TLD should not be added because it is not sufficiently "needed." This strikes me as pernicious. Further, I can't think of any reason why it would be desirable for ICANN to apply such a "need" test. Jon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:30:52 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] Cairo meeting The folks at ICANN central have confirmed that there *will* be a WG-C meeting in Cairo, as per my earlier message, at 7 a.m. on Wednesday (before the GA meeting). As with our Los Angeles physical meeting, no decisions will be made in Cairo that will in any way bind the larger group. Rather, the physical meeting represents an opportunity for whichever WG members are able to attend, to hash issues through in a way that they may not be able to do online. I will report to the list about the discussions at the physical meeting as soon as I can afterwards. If we reach any useful conclusions, I'll offer them up for discussion on the list. Jon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:31:29 -0500 From: "Kevin J. Connolly" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Principles for domain names v7 There is a severe problem raised whenever a registry exercises control over who/what may register/be registered as a second-level domain. This is a problem that NSI grappled with very early in the process, and it selected a solution which is unbeatable: the registry/registrar exercises no control over registrations, full stop. Once a registry exercises *some* control over the registrations of SLD names, how can it claim that it is uneconomical for it to exercise complete oversight over *all* domain names under its TLD? How can it be OK to control registrations based on conformity to the "charter" and not stop some pirate from grabbing "cocacola.newdomain?" And once we start down that slope, how do we avoid having registries sued into oblivion by trademark holders, or having to charge $500.00+ for the first year's registration of a domain? In other words, unless a TLD is sharply restricted to a small constituency of registrants (after the fashion of .mil, .gov, and .edu) we are asking for a world of trouble once we try to imbue a TLD with restrictions based on the meaning/content of the TLD. I would feel compelled to counsel any prospective registrant to adopt a policy that says, in effect, "my" TLD means whatever you make of it. I would advise a client to run screaming from the room at the prospect of a TLD whose management requires *any* oversight to control who may register domains, what those domains stand for, or what content can be found within those domains. This is not the same as saying that the domain has no content, or that its content is meaningless. Take, for example, mcdonald.per (or .nom). The meaning of the .per or .nom TLD signifies that mcdonald.per is about a clan of Scotsmen, not hamburgers. The control would not, however, be imposed by the registry or registrar. The control would flow from (it is hoped) the consistent refusal of trademark-enforcing tribunals to shut down mcdonald.per ^ .nom as a community for that ilk of Scots. The ideas are nice as principles, but they break down in practice. We do not have to adopt all of NSI's policies, but we should not ignore the wealth of experience that they have acquired. Let us be mindful of history's lessons, lest we reiterate the follies of the past. KJC.2 ********************************************************************** The information contained in this electronic message is confidential and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections, and/or other applicable protections from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com- munication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communi- cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:38:46 +0100 From: "Philip Sheppard" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Principles for domain names v7 Jonathan, your comments are wise. On semantics, I like very much your proposals for "relevant" population - this captures what we are trying to achieve. I will add and post. The original intent of the multiplicity principle was certainly not to seek limits on names but quite the opposite. If "as needed" is adequately addressed by differentiation, then lets drop "as needed" in this principle. I will drop and post. You rightly address the question of enforcement under certainty. This is intended to go further then the .kids/porn example I gave. But let's remember we are talking about principles, expressions of intent. We should not rule out expressions of intent just because of potential enforcement models. A presumption of good faith may suffice. I agree that a formal screening process will be burdensome. But screening can be policed by many players. First, as you say, there will be self-screening - there is little commercial sense in being in .automobiles when you have nothing to do with cars. Second, there is peer screening. If you are outside of the charter complaints by the other domain name holders may be the all the screening process required. In essence, the principle I think is worth having. And its enforcement is subject to the principle on "simplicity". One model of unburdensome enforcement is one based on self-selection backed up by a complaints system. Philip ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:41:57 +0100 From: "Philip Sheppard" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Principles for domain names v8 Based on new input received (Weinberg) here follows amendment 8 to the principles. - ------------------------------------------------------------- Criteria for assessing a gTLD application from a registry operator, 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. Other principles 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 relevant population of net users. 7. Multiplicity - new gTLDs should become available 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: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 09:38:39 -0800 From: "Cohen, Tod" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Cairo meeting Jonathan, I wanted to announce my resignation from Working Group C. Please take me off the list-serv. I am departing the MPAA tomorrow, to join eBay as Washington Counsel, Director of Government Affairs starting March 6. It has been a great pleasure working everyone on Working Group C over the last six months. Ted Shapiro and Axel aus der Muhlen will be handling all of the MPAA's domain name work. Sincerely yours, Tod Cohen -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:weinberg@mail.msen.com] Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 11:31 AM To: wg-c@dnso.org Subject: [wg-c] Cairo meeting The folks at ICANN central have confirmed that there *will* be a WG-C meeting in Cairo, as per my earlier message, at 7 a.m. on Wednesday (before the GA meeting). As with our Los Angeles physical meeting, no decisions will be made in Cairo that will in any way bind the larger group. Rather, the physical meeting represents an opportunity for whichever WG members are able to attend, to hash issues through in a way that they may not be able to do online. I will report to the list about the discussions at the physical meeting as soon as I can afterwards. If we reach any useful conclusions, I'll offer them up for discussion on the list. Jon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:30:03 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Principles for domain names v7 - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 28-Feb-2000 Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > I understand this principle to mean that a gTLD registry must enforce > the > conditions of its charter, if any, against SLD registrants, so that the > registry must refuse or delete the SLD registration of an entity that uses, > or would use, the registration in a way inconsistent with "what [the gTLD] > purports to stand for." It also means, I assume, that ICANN should take > some sort of action against a gTLD that fails to engage in such > enforcement. (If the principle doesn't mean those two things, I don't > think it means anything.) This sort of monitoring is expensive. As one of the few members of this list with some experience enforcing a domain registry with some restrictions on use I can validate Jonathan's comments above. When I was Director of the Abuse team for the defunct ml.org registry, it was our job to remove domains whose registrant vioated the ml.org terms of service. This included so called "warez" sites, where copyrighted software was being distributed, as well as sites that advertised or promoted using "spam" (however that term was defined on any given day by an internet community that continued to expand the meaning as it saw fit). We had a full team devoted this, and I can say with some authority, if a registry were to run a strict enforcement policy, it would cost them a very pretty penny. We were busy just investigating complaints, and never had the time to use the many other tools that were at our disposal, including such simple ones as free text searches of the domain database to find common words associated with the types of sites we were after, etc. I cannot see how a registry can guarantee enforcement of such a charter without driving the price up VERY VERY high. And it is for this primary reason that I oppose any measure that would require ICANN to police the registry for enforcement of someone's view of what a "charter" should be. - - -- 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 iD8DBQE4uujb8zLmV94Pz+IRArkhAJ41uGgrwGozR0CoDeNIA84l6xRelgCg1KnY mkEuHP8LzLevufmDHFrRb6E= =MNTT - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 21:33:43 -0800 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] Principles for domain names v7 On Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 01:30:03PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: [...] > As one of the few members of this list with some experience enforcing a domain > registry with some restrictions on use I can validate Jonathan's comments > above. When I was Director of the Abuse team for the defunct ml.org registry, > it was our job to remove domains whose registrant vioated the ml.org terms of > service. This included so called "warez" sites, where copyrighted software was > being distributed, as well as sites that advertised or promoted using "spam" > (however that term was defined on any given day by an internet community that > continued to expand the meaning as it saw fit). We had a full team devoted > this Data is always valuable: When you say "full team", what does that mean precisely? How many people? full-time or part-time? volunteers or paid? did you proactively search for bad guys, or did you operate from complaints? did you have a policy requiring positive identification, or did you have lots of anonymous users? did you have repeat offenders? when someone was accused of something, what "due process" did you have? was there a dispute resolution mechanism of any sort, such as arbitration etc? > , and I can say with some authority, if a registry were to run a strict > enforcement policy, it would cost them a very pretty penny. but ml.org was a free registry and didn't have any money worth speaking of, so how did you afford the cost of enforcement? > We were busy just > investigating complaints, and never had the time to use the many other tools > that were at our disposal, including such simple ones as free text searches of > the domain database to find common words associated with the types of sites we > were after, etc. I cannot see how a registry can guarantee enforcement of > such a charter without driving the price up VERY VERY high. But you did it at essentially no cost, since ml.org was a free registry. It was not run as a business -- how is it that you could speak with authority about the costs of enforcement? Don't forget: just because you can't see how to do something does not prove it can't be done. Also, even if it were true in every case, that the cost of enforcement was very high (note that NSI doesn't spend much money enforcing the .edu charter), that doesn't mean that such registries are either bad or economically unviable -- people pay money for vanity license plates on cars, after all. > And it is for > this primary reason that I oppose any measure that would require ICANN to > police the registry for enforcement of someone's view of what a "charter" > should be. It is unfortunately a general problem that ICANN will have to police registries for adherence to technical standards, operational standards, and policies. - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #22 *************************