From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #56 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Tuesday, March 21 2000 Volume 01 : Number 056 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 08:29:37 +0900 From: "Robert F. Connelly" Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs At 14:22 20-03-2000 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote: > > why should new gTLDs be created for potential registrant populations less > > than 10^5. > >While this seems superficially reasonable, it is in my opinion going at >things in the wrong direction, and asking the wrong question. Small >size of the potential registrant population is a secondary concern, and >in fact, in the other direction it is a truly bad measure -- we don't >want to only have TLDs that have potential registrations in the >multimillions -- that would just create repeats of the .com problem. Dear Kent: We may be confusing a "registrY" for a piece of hardware/software. It should be possible for several registries to sit on the same machine, thus facilitating having the costs of operation allocated over the whole range of gTLDs on the machine. Each could have fewer than 10^5 SLDs, but still be well managed. CORE has had discussions with LDCs which have not set up their ccTLDs because of cost. The CORE machine(s) could become a RegistrY for some gTLDs and the "home" for others. Regards, BobC ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:35:40 -0800 (PST) From: Rick H Wesson Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs kent, the context is "6 to 10 additional gTLDs" ie the testbed of new registries. your suggestions assume that the registrant population could be controlled requiring some gTLDs to restrict whom might register under it. Why should we pick some names with a potentially small pool of potential registrants. Since SLD names are currently scarce the market factors of opening what may now appear like a small pool of registrants are not; add the potential for cybersquating and wholesale name purchasing and what we now might consider "small" may turn out to be potentially as large as com/net/org. we should consider that whatever the initial list of new gTLDs are that they have a potentially large registrant base so we have a good "test" of all the technical and administrative features of whatever comes to play in the newdom area. for instance, if the testbed doesn't work and we cant create additional gTLDs until we clean up our mess, then we have potentially created 6 to 10 new problems that could be as large as the NSI problem has been. I propose that we focus on the adding 6 to 10 additional GENERIC TLDs like our wg paper proposes we have consessus on. after we review how well it worked or didn't work; then we may determine how to move forward to the size of allocations you like to think of. regards, - -rick (we are not creating a directory service!) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 16:32:37 -0700 From: "Kyle J Taylor" Subject: Re: [wg-c] OK, *really* final version My vote is Yes. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 16:21:38 -0800 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs On Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 03:35:40PM -0800, Rick H Wesson wrote: > kent, > > the context is "6 to 10 additional gTLDs" ie the testbed of new > registries. Doesn't matter. > your suggestions assume that the registrant population could be > controlled requiring some gTLDs to restrict whom might register under it. Nope. "Control" is not a necessary factor. Chartered or not, enforced or not, controlled or not, .museum isn't going to have as many registrations as .shop, .info, .web, or even .nom. > Why should we pick some names with a potentially small pool of potential > registrants. Precisely because it's a testbed. If we screw up we have a smaller mess to clean up. [...] > for instance, if the testbed doesn't work and we cant create additional > gTLDs until we clean up our mess, then we have potentially created 6 to 10 > new problems that could be as large as the NSI problem has been. Yes. Precisely. - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 18:28:20 -0600 From: "Chicoine, Caroline" Subject: [wg-c] VOTE WGC REPORT Vote - NO Caroline G. Chicoine Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin LLP 720 Olive, 24th Floor St. Louis, MO 63101 (314) 345-6443 cchicoine@bspmlaw.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 09:32:19 +0900 From: "Robert F. Connelly" Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs At 18:56 20-03-2000 -0500, Ross Wm. Rader wrote: >LDC? Dear Ross: "Less Developed Countries". There's controversy over the term. Let's say, Less Developed than Newly Industrialized Counties" (aka "NICs"). Should we call the LDCs "LDtNICs";-}? Personal regards, BobC ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 16:51:56 -0800 (PST) From: Rick H Wesson Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs Kent, On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Kent Crispin wrote: > > your suggestions assume that the registrant population could be > > controlled requiring some gTLDs to restrict whom might register under it. > > Nope. "Control" is not a necessary factor. Chartered or not, enforced > or not, controlled or not, .museum isn't going to have as many > registrations as .shop, .info, .web, or even .nom. I could see sex.museum and fuck.museum and my.museum being quite usefull. infact if there are lots of places that have sparse use they will be picked up by folks looking for a return or folks looking for cool new names that are not available in anyother gTLD. a) I wouldn't consider any dictionary word generic b) just about all dictionary words will end up registered as SLDs in any new gTLDs created. assuming that a new gTLD wil be underutilized IMHO just doesn't jive with what the names market is currently experencing. There are 214,000 definitions in Merriam-Webster's Dictionary. There are more than 214,000 domain registrations in com/net/org gTLD each week. - -rick ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 19:54:30 -0500 (EST) From: James Love Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs Given the fact that we are in a "test bed" stage, that could lead to the creation of far larger numbers of TLDs, it would seem appropriate to choose the examples to illustrate the types of TLDs that might be interesting to have. The Non-Commercial domain holders asked that half of the test bed TLDs be used for non-commercial TLDs. It was also the sense of the non-commercial domain holders that they wanted the non-commercial domains to "mean something." Success would not necessarily be measured in terms of the numbers of domains issued. For example, the .int, .gov and .edu domains are more interesting to users precisely because they are restricted and limited in use. Some registrars want to see domains that "sell" in large nubmers, because that is how they make money. There is interest in the non-commercial domain constituency to create TLDs that achieve social objectives, or that provide helpful signalling. I think WG-C should address both, and I think the views of the non-commerical constituencies should be important in evaluating the proposals for non-commercial TLDs. Jamie On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Kent Crispin wrote: > On Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 03:35:40PM -0800, Rick H Wesson wrote: > > kent, > > > > the context is "6 to 10 additional gTLDs" ie the testbed of new > > registries. > > Doesn't matter. > > > your suggestions assume that the registrant population could be > > controlled requiring some gTLDs to restrict whom might register under it. > > Nope. "Control" is not a necessary factor. Chartered or not, enforced > or not, controlled or not, .museum isn't going to have as many > registrations as .shop, .info, .web, or even .nom. > > > Why should we pick some names with a potentially small pool of potential > > registrants. > > Precisely because it's a testbed. If we screw up we have a smaller mess > to clean up. > > [...] > > > for instance, if the testbed doesn't work and we cant create additional > > gTLDs until we clean up our mess, then we have potentially created 6 to 10 > > new problems that could be as large as the NSI problem has been. > > Yes. Precisely. > > -- > Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be > kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain > Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs On Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 04:51:56PM -0800, Rick H Wesson wrote: > > Kent, > > > > Nope. "Control" is not a necessary factor. Chartered or not, enforced > > or not, controlled or not, .museum isn't going to have as many > > registrations as .shop, .info, .web, or even .nom. > > > I could see sex.museum and fuck.museum and my.museum being quite usefull. Perhaps so. However, that really doesn't address the point. It is undeniably true that there are lots of essentially open TLDs that are nowhere near as popular as .com. Names are different -- if all names were equal, then .org would be as big as .com. In any case, the "control" issue is somewhat peripheral. In the long run it seems clear that most small, sparsely settled TLDs would have charters -- I'm just indicating that universal charters are not a cast-iron requirement. > infact if there are lots of places that have sparse use they will be > picked up by folks looking for a return or folks looking for cool new > names that are not available in anyother gTLD. Perhaps, but I'm not sure you catch what I'm getting at. These are TLDs with names or charters that by definition tend to segregate the registrants. For example, I have a business named songbird. I really don't think I would be inclined to register "songbird.irish" just because I couldn't get "songbird.com" -- unless I was Irish, in which case it might be very interesting to me. Nor do I think domain speculators would be inclined to hoard such names on speculation, especially if they had to pay in advance, and there were thousands of them. On the other hand, if .naa ever gets created, I may very well be interested in songbird.naa, because it would be a TLD that I supported and worked to get created, and that would have personal significance to me. > a) I wouldn't consider any dictionary word generic > b) just about all dictionary words will end up registered as SLDs in > any new gTLDs created. > > assuming that a new gTLD wil be underutilized IMHO just doesn't jive with > what the names market is currently experencing. > > There are 214,000 definitions in Merriam-Webster's Dictionary. There are > more than 214,000 domain registrations in com/net/org gTLD each week. I think you are using gTLD in the sense used in the gTLD MoU, and as Javier meant to when he wrote the charter for this WG. However, because Javier slipped and inserted the rhetorical question "should they have charters", Jon has assumed that "gTLDs" means "all TLDs that are not ccTLDs". Consequently, my understanding is that the term as used in the so-called "consensus" document does include chartered TLDs as part of the initial 6-10. Kent - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 17:51:20 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 21-Mar-2000 James Love wrote: > I think WG-C should address both, and I think the views of the > non-commerical constituencies should be important in evaluating the > proposals for non-commercial TLDs. I agree, but I think that half is a bit...extreme. I would support creation of a .per or something along those lines as a part of the test bed. The only real issue I have with this is that when we "define" top level domains as being restricted to one type of context, we limit the domain name holder in what they can and cannot do with that domain to an extent that I find unnecessary. If I register a .per domain, let's say williamwalsh.per, and then I do some consulting, and to make matters simple for my clients I put up some pages about my services on my website using the williamwalsh.per domain name. I am now using that domain for commercial purposes. But then, I should be allowed to. Technically even using the email address as a POC for my commercial enterprise would violate the strict terms of a no "commercial" use. If my personal site is popular, and I place ad banners on it from which I derive income, could you get my domain taken away? I see this as wrought with problems. A domain registry should not be a content police force. It is a registration service, and that alone. I would want to see any strict charters to have a lot of public input, because I see the rights of domain holders to use their domains as being in jeopardy by these attempts to turn registries into content police. I know the MPAA and RIAA want domain names to be revoked when there are complaints about content, but surely we all see that as being extreme. - - -- 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 v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE41tWX8zLmV94Pz+IRAhYYAKDxSfZnoU4vNIJLSl7xwBNzEn9OqwCfaRCp sLNZ0EeQGdau6PnYAZ80zC8= =YnkT - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 21:13:18 -0500 (EST) From: James Love Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, William X. Walsh wrote: > I see this as wrought with problems. A domain registry should not > be a content police force. It is a registration service, and that > alone. That is one view of what a TLD should be, but it is not a view that reflects current practice, and it is not our view. > I would want to see any strict charters to have a lot of public > input, because I see the rights of domain holders to use their > domains as being in jeopardy by these attempts to turn registries > into content police. The system would depend upon the TLD and its charter. We have .gov, .edu, .mil and .int. Each has its own system, and each seems to work ok. Labor unions are meeting soon to discuss the .union TLD, including issues of how such a TLD might be managed. I don't know what they will come up with, but if they choose to vest the management of the TLD in a big international labor union federation of some type, it would be fine with me. > > I know the MPAA and RIAA want domain names to be revoked when there are > complaints about content, but surely we all see that as being extreme. There are lots of groups that will be seeking to use ICANN to enforce a variety of policies. This was raised in Strasbough last thursday in a meeting of the European Parliament. I was there. This has nothing to do with TLDs. It has to do with ICANN's power and control over domain registrations. The US government has already asked ICANN to eliminate the "mickey mouse" type registrations and to find the true name of the domain owners, and also to address trademark issues. I think this is only the beginning of ICANN as an enforcement tool for governments. This is an observation, not an endorsement. Jamie - ------------------ James Love, Consumer Project on Technology P.O. Box 19367 | http://www.cptech.org Washington, DC 20036 | love@cptech.org Voice 202/387-8030 | Fax 202/234-5176 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 18:22:34 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 21-Mar-2000 James Love wrote: > On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, William X. Walsh wrote: >> I see this as wrought with problems. A domain registry should not >> be a content police force. It is a registration service, and that >> alone. > > That is one view of what a TLD should be, but it is not a view that > reflects current practice, and it is not our view. Most certainly it reflects current practice. > >> I would want to see any strict charters to have a lot of public >> input, because I see the rights of domain holders to use their >> domains as being in jeopardy by these attempts to turn registries >> into content police. > > The system would depend upon the TLD and its charter. We have .gov, > .edu, .mil and .int. Each has its own system, and each seems to work > ok. Those are limited exceptions. And there is a lot of criticism of the way .edu and .int are run, and there are a lot of people who do not think .gov or .mil should exist. I for one think that all new domains under those TLDs should be instead registered under gov.us and mil.us. I understand that gov.us is being administered along side .gov at the moment. I think it would be more appropriate for them to begin enforcing a change to gov.us by not registering any new .gov domains. Same with .mil. As for .edu, there is a lot of international criticism about how restrictive it is. There are a ever growing number of k-12 schools who feel they are being unfairly treated under that policy, and being pushed instead to use a rather lengthy fourth level domain. To imply that .edu works and does so without controversy is simply wrong. .INT has been wrought with problems. I for one would love to see an explanation of how TPC.INT qualifies under the .INT "charter" and why many other more worthy projects have been denied. I am not alone in those concerns. > Labor unions are meeting soon to discuss the .union TLD, including > issues of how such a TLD might be managed. I don't know what they will > come up with, but if they choose to vest the management of the TLD in a > big international labor union federation of some type, it would be fine > with me. Fine with you, but surely you can see how .union can be used to mean many different things. Odd who those multiple meaning words do that, isn't it? >> >> I know the MPAA and RIAA want domain names to be revoked when there are >> complaints about content, but surely we all see that as being extreme. > > There are lots of groups that will be seeking to use ICANN to > enforce a variety of policies. This was raised in Strasbough last > thursday in a meeting of the European Parliament. I was there. This > has nothing to do with TLDs. It has to do with ICANN's power and > control over domain registrations. The US government has already asked > ICANN to eliminate the "mickey mouse" type registrations and to find the > true name of the domain owners, and also to address trademark issues. I > think this is only the beginning of ICANN as an enforcement tool for > governments. This is an observation, not an endorsement. I don' t know what you are referring to here, but ICANN's sole function is technical coordination. Unfortunately, it is the forces of the Trademark/IP interests who have pushed ICANN into a policy administration role in return for them not outright opposing ICANN and it's perceived authority. ICANN sold out on that point. I would not encourage it to continue exceeding it's function just because it did it once. - - -- 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 v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE41tzq8zLmV94Pz+IRAntmAJ4hRPCczXJUWrICL6QWoHHl0G2sXACg7A8G lofVoSw2itURrgG/HrF3PWw= =r2ZU - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 11:30:00 +0900 From: "Robert F. Connelly" Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs At 17:41 20-03-2000 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote: >Consequently, my understanding is that the term as used in the >so-called "consensus" document does include chartered TLDs as part of >the initial 6-10. Dear Kent: I know what you mean, but I think a more nearly correct wording would be "... the so-called 'consensus' document does not *exclude* chartered TLDs as a part of the initial 6-10". And, indeed, if .naa is delegated, it will be "included". Regards, BobC - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I've sawed this board off three times, and it's *still* too short". "Small choice between rotten apples." Dr. U.B. Bray ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 21:58:33 -0500 From: Milton Mueller Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shared gTLDs Rick, you've hit the nail on the head. This is the fundamental flaw in the .naa proposal and some of the other "sponsored" TLD proposals that address miniscule populations of registrants. A .mus or .naa would be fine if we were in the process of authorizing hundreds or thousands of TLDs. In an environment of artificial scarcity, restricted to only 6-10, it makes no sense to authorize TLDs that will receive, at most, a few hundred registrations. Indeed, it would be obscene for ICANN, after such massive labors, to give birth to such insignificant mice. I suspect that some of the IP constituency people and their apologists (e.g., Kent) promote this idea because it is the closest thing possible to not expanding the name space at all. Rick H Wesson wrote: > Does the creation of something like .MUSEUM realy add to the utility of > DNS or are we looking at DNS's ability to be a really bad directory > service again? > > If our goal is to open the way for popular gTLDs that create more > "generic" name space then I believe you are making an excelent case not to > have sparcely populated, no matter the modle, gTLDs as the mere fact > that the gTLD lends more benifit to the registry than to the general > internet community. What we are atempting to do is add a greater and > more diverse name space not lend greater credibility to any .SOMETHING ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:07:07 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: [wg-c] Administrivia (@10pm EST) Todays' NO votes are half of last Decembers' votes against 6-10, with some few defections (3) votes, and non-votes (8) being larger than the the total votes cast against the Cairo Report. The Cairo "NO" votes (9). - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ name | paper | 8 Dec | CAIRO | March | | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Anthony Lupo | C | no | | NO | | Caroline Chicoine | C | no | | NO | | Jonathan Winer | | | NEW | NO | | Keith Gymer | C | no | | NO | | Mariah Garvey | | | NEW | NO | | Marilyn Cade | C | no | | NO | | Petter Rindforth | C | no | | NO | | Philip Sheppard | | no | | NO | | Warwick Rothnie | | | NEW | NO | | For comparison, the 6-10 "NO" votes, shown either voting "YES" or not voting. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ name | paper | 8 Dec | CAIRO | March | | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Annie Renard | C | no | | | | Barbara Dooley | | no | | | | Bob Broxton | | no | | | | Elisabeth Porteneuve | | no | | | | J. William Semich | | no | | YES | | John Lewis | | no | | | | Kevin J. Connolly | | no | | YES | | Martin Schwimmer | C | no | | | | Michael Palage | | no | | | | Otho Ross | | no | | | | Scott Pollard | | no | | YES | | The Cairo "YES" votes (40). - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ name | paper | 8 Dec | CAIRO | March | | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alex Kamantauskas | | | NEW | YES | | Bret Fausett | | | NEW | YES | | Christopher Ambler | B | yes | | YES | | Craig Simon | F | yes | | YES | | Dave Crocker | A,D | yes | | YES | | David Maher | A,D | yes | | YES | | Eric Brunner | A,D,E | yes | | YES | | Harold Feld | | yes | | YES | | Harald Tveit Alvestrand | | | NEW | YES | | Ian Penman | | yes | | YES | | J. William Semich | | no | | YES | | James Love | | | NEW | YES | | Jay Parker | | yes | | YES | | Jean-Michel Becar | A | yes | | YES | | Jeff Shrewsbury | | yes | | YES | | Joe Kelsey | | | NEW | YES | | John Charles Broomfield | | yes | | YES | | Josh Elliot | | | NEW | YES | | Joop Teernstra | B | yes | | YES | | Joseph Friedman | A,D | yes | | YES | | Justine McCarthy | | | NEW | YES | | Karl Auerbach | | yes | | YES | | Kathryn Vestal | B | yes | | YES | | Kathryn KL | | | NEW | YES | | Kevin J. Connolly | | no | | YES | | Kyle Taylor | | | | YES | | Mark Langston | B | yes | | YES | | Mark Measday | A | yes | | YES | | Mikki Barry | B | yes | | YES | | Paul Garrin | B | yes | | YES | | Rick H. Wesson | | yes | | YES | | Robert F. Connelly | A | yes | | YES | | Rod Dixon | A,B | yes | | YES | | Roeland Meyer | G | yes | | YES | | Ross Wm. Rader | | yes | | YES | | Scott Pollard | | no | | YES | | Siegfried Langenbach | A | yes | | YES | | Timothy Vienneau | | | NEW | YES | | Tony Linares | | | NEW | YES | | William X. Walsh | B | yes | | YES | | kendall@paradigm.nu | | | NEW | YES | | For comparison, the 6-10 "YES" votes, not voting (or not recorded). - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ name | paper | 8 Dec | CAIRO | March | | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Andrew Lutts | | yes | | | | Ann-Catherine Andersson | | yes | | | | Astrid Broich | | yes | | | | Chris Conant | | yes | | | | Daiva Tamulioniene | | yes | | | | Dongman Lee | | yes | | | | Hal Lubsen | | yes | | | | Jonathan Weinberg | A | yes | | | | Ken Stubbs | | yes | | | | Kilnam Chon | | yes | | | | Milton Mueller | B | yes | | | | Olivier Kozlowski | | yes | | | | Paul Stahura | A | yes | | | | Rebecca Nesson | | yes | | | | Richard Lindsay | | yes | | | | Timothy M. Denton | B | yes | | | | Werner Staub | | yes | | | | There are bound to be errors, but nothing substantive in terms of the raw arithmatic. Kitakitamatsinopowaw, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:19:13 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] WG-C report -- final tally The final tally on the report was 44 yes, 10 no. (A few votes were sent to me rather than to the list.) The yes's: McCarthy, Barry, Crocker, Measday, Dawson, Brunner, Love, Pollard, Linares, Penman, Auerbach, Wesson, Walsh, Langston, Rader, Garrin, Ambler, Semich, Broomfield, Meyer, Teernstra, Simon, Parker, Shrewsbury, Dixon, Feld, Langenbach, Friedman, Alvestrand, Kamantauskas, Becar, Elliott, Greenwell, Maher, Vestal, Vienneau, Fausett, Schuckman, K. Connolly, Kleiman, Campbell, R. Connolly, Kelsey, Taylor. The no's: Rindforth, Lupo, Rothnie, Sheppard, Winer, Gymer, Lewis, Garvey, Cade, Chicoine. I've sent the report to Ken Stubbs to distribute to the Names Council. Jon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:36:33 -0500 (EST) From: James Love Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, William X. Walsh wrote: > > The system would depend upon the TLD and its charter. We have .gov, > > .edu, .mil and .int. Each has its own system, and each seems to work > > ok. > > Those are limited exceptions. Well, they are exceptions, and the fact that they are "limited" is the point, and why these TLDs mean something (unlike .org or .net, which mean nothing). > And there is a lot of criticism of > the way .edu and .int are run, and there are a lot of people who do > not think .gov or .mil should exist. I for one think that all new > domains under those TLDs should be instead registered under gov.us > and mil.us. I guess the US government thinks it should benefit from its early investments in the Internet. But in any case, neither of us will change this. > As for .edu, there is a lot of international criticism about how restrictive it > is. There are a ever growing number of k-12 schools who feel they are being > unfairly treated under that policy, and being pushed instead to use a rather > lengthy fourth level domain. To imply that .edu works and does so without > controversy is simply wrong. I don't suggest there aren't disputes or even controversey over who can get a particularl TLD, like .edu. But the fact that it is restrictive is a good thing, IMO. What if everyone could get .edu? What would it mean? What would be the point? Rather than giving everyone the .edu, it would make more sense to create more TLDs. > .INT has been wrought with problems. I for one would love to see an > explanation of how TPC.INT qualifies under the .INT "charter" and > why many other more worthy projects have been denied. I am not > alone in those concerns. I find the .int and .gov TLDs useful. It is some assurance that a group has some official status. I don't want everyone to get either TLD. > > Labor unions are meeting soon to discuss the .union TLD, including > > issues of how such a TLD might be managed. I don't know what they will > > come up with, but if they choose to vest the management of the TLD in a > > big international labor union federation of some type, it would be fine > > with me. > > Fine with you, but surely you can see how .union can be used to mean many > different things. Odd who those multiple meaning words do that, isn't it? I can see from your web page, you want to provide domain registration services. So it is not surprising that you can see ourheavenly.union, Ihatethe.union, and lots of other .union domains that might sell in the market. I could care less about that. The fact that people might want to use .edu, .gov, .int, .union and other non commerical domains, for lots of interesting and cool domain names, isn't as important to me as the value of the TLD as a signal. A TLD can't be all things to all people. If the TLD is a first come first serve thing, it will be different than if its use is restricted. There is room for both models. I support the creation of thousands of TLDs, and lots of different management models, including the kinds that you like, as well as these other kinds. > >> I know the MPAA and RIAA want domain names to be revoked when there are > >> complaints about content, but surely we all see that as being extreme. > > > > There are lots of groups that will be seeking to use ICANN to > > enforce a variety of policies. This was raised in Strasbough last > > thursday in a meeting of the European Parliament. I was there. This > > has nothing to do with TLDs. It has to do with ICANN's power and > > control over domain registrations. The US government has already asked > > ICANN to eliminate the "mickey mouse" type registrations and to find the > > true name of the domain owners, and also to address trademark issues. I > > think this is only the beginning of ICANN as an enforcement tool for > > governments. This is an observation, not an endorsement. > > I don' t know what you are referring to here, but ICANN's sole > function is technical coordination. Well, I don't see that what we are discussing here is strickly technical. > Unfortunately, it is the forces > of the Trademark/IP interests who have pushed ICANN into a policy > administration role in return for them not outright opposing ICANN > and it's perceived authority. ICANN sold out on that point. I > would not encourage it to continue exceeding it's function just > because it did it once. I don't think the future will be up to ICANN alone. If ICANN has the power to place conditions on domains, as it is doing now with regard to anonymity and trademarks, it will be approached by governments to do more. The suggestion was made in Strasbough, last week, that ICANN be required to put provisions into its contracts that it would permit courts in any country to order a domain be removed. Apparently NSI has been doing this for a while already, but the new competitive registry system makes this less of a "one stop shopping" issue for court orders. Jamie James Love, Consumer Project on Technology P.O. Box 19367 | http://www.cptech.org Washington, DC 20036 | love@cptech.org Voice 202/387-8030 | Fax 202/234-5176 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 20:45:40 -0800 From: Justin McCarthy Subject: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs Dear mystery man Crocker, I was intently following the debate between yourself and William and, like William, I don't see where the IAB has specifically stated that there are technical constraints to introducing new TLDs in the article you referenced. Again, could you please be as specific as possible in stating the relevant technical constraints that you see in this article? I don't think it's fair debate to make vague references to doom and gloom and not explain when you are called on them. And please don't just simply forward a copy of the article. I want to make sure that I'm not "reading something other than what was written." - -Justin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:52:33 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: Re: [wg-c] current version of WG-C report At 07:20 AM 3/21/00 +0900, Robert F. Connelly wrote: >[snip] >Jon, unless the reader is intimately aware of what we are doing, they will >not know that the last phrase means. I think it means the Jonathan Cohen >is now a member of ICANN's Board, but he was then a member of the "Names >Council" representing the "IP Constituency". > >It gets worse, references to ISPCPC and NCDNHC are just too cryptic. Our >report needs to be understandable to outsiders on the Internet. > >I know you've worked hard on this project, much harder than any of us would >have been willing to do. But I wonder if you could do a bit of "searching >and replacing". A the very least, flesh out "C" to "Con". Any objection to a (wholly nonsubstantive, else we couldn't consider it now) change of "IPC" to "IP constituency," etc? Jon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 20:04:47 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 21-Mar-2000 James Love wrote: >> And there is a lot of criticism of >> the way .edu and .int are run, and there are a lot of people who do >> not think .gov or .mil should exist. I for one think that all new >> domains under those TLDs should be instead registered under gov.us >> and mil.us. > > I guess the US government thinks it should benefit from its early > investments in the Internet. But in any case, neither of us will change > this. I think even the US Government is realizing it needs to make a change. I am hopeful that with their now using gov.us that they will begin a migration. Let's correct our prior mistakes not make more of them. >> As for .edu, there is a lot of international criticism about how restrictive >> it >> is. There are a ever growing number of k-12 schools who feel they are >> being >> unfairly treated under that policy, and being pushed instead to use a rather >> lengthy fourth level domain. To imply that .edu works and does so without >> controversy is simply wrong. > > I don't suggest there aren't disputes or even controversey over who > can get a particularl TLD, like .edu. But the fact that it is > restrictive is a good thing, IMO. What if everyone could get .edu? > What would it mean? What would be the point? > > Rather than giving everyone the .edu, it would make more sense to > create more TLDs. So instead you have Network Solutions deciding what is or is not a valid educational institution. Great solution, and has been proven not to work very well. The number of bogus processed registrations under .edu have been up considerly. I see reports of new ones every month. >> .INT has been wrought with problems. I for one would love to see an >> explanation of how TPC.INT qualifies under the .INT "charter" and >> why many other more worthy projects have been denied. I am not >> alone in those concerns. > > I find the .int and .gov TLDs useful. It is some assurance that a > group has some official status. I don't want everyone to get either > TLD. Apparently you didn't understand. That SOME "unofficial status" projects have gotten .int domains, but other worthy projects didn't. Who is making the decisions of what is or is not qualified for a .int domain name, and what are the standards they are enforcing? They do not seem to be very clear, and surely TPC.INT has no "official status." If they get their domain, certainly other projects of the same caliber should have every right to use that domain was well. The point is that if you are going to enforce it, ENFORCE IT. If you can't enforce it, then stop trying to pretend that you can. So far with the exception of .mil, every other domain has had enforcement problems, including .gov. Their are numerous domains registered to non-US government agencies, including one to the State of California, which doesn't qualify under the rules. Who decided what exceptions are made? If a TLD is going to have a charter, there should be NO Exceptions, and if you can't make it stick, then why have a charter when it is only going to be selectively enforced? Why not let the consumers decide for themselves what the meaning of those strings of characters mean to them? >> > Labor unions are meeting soon to discuss the .union TLD, including >> > issues of how such a TLD might be managed. I don't know what they will >> > come up with, but if they choose to vest the management of the TLD in a >> > big international labor union federation of some type, it would be fine >> > with me. >> >> Fine with you, but surely you can see how .union can be used to mean many >> different things. Odd who those multiple meaning words do that, isn't it? > > I can see from your web page, you want to provide domain > registration services. So it is not surprising that you can see > ourheavenly.union, Ihatethe.union, and lots of other .union domains > that might sell in the market. I am intending, as a part of my ISP business, to offer domain registration. Find me a web hosting company who doesn't. This has absolutely no impact on my position, and has been my position long before I decided to resell someone else's registration services. > I could care less about that. The fact that people might want to > use .edu, .gov, .int, .union and other non commerical domains, for lots > of interesting and cool domain names, isn't as important to me as the > value of the TLD as a signal. A TLD can't be all things to all people. > If the TLD is a first come first serve thing, it will be different than > if its use is restricted. There is room for both models. > > I support the creation of thousands of TLDs, and lots of different > management models, including the kinds that you like, as well as > these other kinds. Nice way to skirt the issues. You think they are useful, so that makes it the way things should be done. Sorry, James, but I just don't agree with that position. So far no one has pointed out to me what problems there are with letting these domains be open domains, and letting the organizations you are trying to cater to coexist with other types of registrations under those TLDs. What harms do you envision, exactly? When we make a restriction or pass a law to limit commerce activities, we generally have to justify that there is a real harm to not having this restriction. Not that this restriction could be "useful" but that there is a real problem that this rule addresses. What problems/harms do you see that need to be addressed and cannot be addressed with less restrictive processes? > >> >> I know the MPAA and RIAA want domain names to be revoked when there are >> >> complaints about content, but surely we all see that as being extreme. >> > >> > There are lots of groups that will be seeking to use ICANN to >> > enforce a variety of policies. This was raised in Strasbough last >> > thursday in a meeting of the European Parliament. I was there. This >> > has nothing to do with TLDs. It has to do with ICANN's power and >> > control over domain registrations. The US government has already asked >> > ICANN to eliminate the "mickey mouse" type registrations and to find the >> > true name of the domain owners, and also to address trademark issues. I >> > think this is only the beginning of ICANN as an enforcement tool for >> > governments. This is an observation, not an endorsement. >> >> I don' t know what you are referring to here, but ICANN's sole >> function is technical coordination. > > Well, I don't see that what we are discussing here is strickly > technical. But it should be. ICANN's charter, is the Board continues to try and remind us and the press, is TECHNICAL COORDINATION. They cannot have it both ways. Either ICANN changes their charter and their contract with the USG to become a global policy structure for Internet Governance, or they leave those issues where they belong, OUTSIDE of the technical coordination of the Internet's protocols, numbers, and names. >> Unfortunately, it is the forces >> of the Trademark/IP interests who have pushed ICANN into a policy >> administration role in return for them not outright opposing ICANN >> and it's perceived authority. ICANN sold out on that point. I >> would not encourage it to continue exceeding it's function just >> because it did it once. > > I don't think the future will be up to ICANN alone. If ICANN has > the power to place conditions on domains, as it is doing now with > regard to anonymity and trademarks, it will be approached by governments > to do more. You think ICANN is eliminating anonymity? I registered a domain just two weeks ago under a pseudonym. I did it for a real purpose. ICANN has no process or authority to change that, and nothing it has done up until now has prevented that. Nor should they. > The suggestion was made in Strasbough, last week, that ICANN be > required to put provisions into its contracts that it would permit > courts in any country to order a domain be removed. Apparently NSI has > been doing this for a while already, but the new competitive registry > system makes this less of a "one stop shopping" issue for court orders. That suggestion can be made, but that suggestion is wrought with problems. A court in Germany has absolutely no authority over me, and if ICANN removes my domain name on the order of a German court, ICANN is going to find it on the wrong side of a lawsuit about my rights to due process. They can make the agreement say whatever they want, but when those provisions are ruled unlawful in a court, they will provide no protection for ICANN or it's Board of Directors when they are held responsible for their actions. - - -- 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 v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE41vTe8zLmV94Pz+IRAjBrAKDQyaAmhyuV4ZWOjbV1s2jc6S5PaACg48+8 WphRpe6bPboScx/AKpmpcuI= =mryL - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #56 *************************