From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #71 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Wednesday, April 5 2000 Volume 01 : Number 071 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 08:55:12 -0700 From: "Mark C. Langston" Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda] On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:17:09AM -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > > Let's talk about this. > [snip] > 2. The actual language in the S/K > principles that goes to the question of enforcement is #1: "a gTLD > should give the net user confidence that it stands for what it > purports to stand for." My understanding of that language, based on > various folks' exchanges with Philip on this list, is that ICANN > would expect a new TLD to have some mechanism (pre- or post- > registration) to eliminate SLD registrations that are inconsistent > with "what [the gTLD] purports to stand for." Philip has indicated > that the language is consistent with having a new TLD that is open, > and therefore "stands for" unrestricted content, but presumably a > TLD that indicates in its charter that it "stands for" something > narrower would have to have some mechanism to enforce that by > excluding SLD registrants. This is a huge mistake, and one people are continually making. The existence of an SLD does not indicate the existance of a website, nor does it mandate it. Are we to assume that all SLD registrants in a TLD will be required to run websites? If not, how else will content and adherence to charter be determined? Will the registry require that the website be run bound to port 80? Will the proper use be limited to, or a subset of, the use to which the owner puts the SLD? Will compliance be determined by a context-free analysis of the various potential meanings of the SLD string? In short, how do they propose to do this? It's a nice sentiment, but I'm not about to endorse anything that vague and overarching before these and similar issues are resolved. > There's been some debate on the list as to how costly this would > be, but I think Kevin raises a more basic issue that I'd like to see > discussed: Is this a good model for the name space, or a bad one? > *Should* most new TLDs have such mechanisms? I don't think chartered TLDs are a bad model. I do, however, believe that the sentiment expressed in #2 above is just silly. When you have a chartered TLD, tie the qualifications to something _tangible_, like .edu does, or .gov, or .int. If you want to start enforcing restrictions based on the content of the entities you're restricting, you're not an impartial arbiter, you're a censor (and a poor one, at that). What does this mean for individuals? Not much, except that most individuals will be locked out of participating in these chartered TLDs. While every entity is typically a superset of one or more individuals, no individual can by hirself claim to be a seperate entity. In other words, corporations and other non-human entities will always be able to participate in individual-oriented TLDs, whereas individuals are always going to be locked out of participation in chartered TLDs. I'm not sure how I feel about this. My whole basis for supporting chartered TLDs was that it'd give business safe spaces in which they wouldn't have to worry so much about infringement. But it would seem that they'd rather have strict control over all of namespace than their own sandlot in which to play. > There are some who argue that the best, bottom-up, user-driven > structure for the name space will be created by allowing users to > register where they want, and thus to define the name space in the > ways most meaningful to them. There are others who argue that that > such an approach would interfere with attempts to add value through > the structure of the name space, and would allow some registrants to > destroy the utility of the name space for others. Using Kevin's > example, they urge that .FIRM can add value only if a user can > deduce from a registrant's presence in that portion of the name > space that it is in fact a limited-liability corporation (say), and > not an unincorporated pornographer. I suspect that this is one of > the most important issues underlying the S/K principles. What do > people think? If the charter is enforced and enforceable (see my concerns about #2 above), the end-user perception of the TLD will emerge naturally from its constituent members. Cf. .INT, .GOV, and .EDU. If the charters are enacted as per the S/K proposal, the end-user will be confused, the group responsible for policing the space will go bankrupt, and the TLD will revert to generic status, at which point we'll have IP interests clamoring for tighter controls on it before they have to spend money to police their own marks again. - -- Mark C. Langston mark@bitshift.org Systems & Network Admin San Jose, CA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 00:33:56 +0800 From: tinwee@pobox.org.sg Subject: Re: [wg-c] Working Group C agenda Multilingualism as a basic principle - ------------------------------------ The principles should spare a thought for folks who are non-native speakers of English, or at least, not familiar with the English alphabet. After all, is the Internet the global info infrastructure or is it not? Shouldn't there be a principle that includes multilingualism? At least, until the IETF IDN working group comes up with the guidelines for internationalising the domain name system, the Sheppard/Kleinman principles should lay down the basis for a level playing field in making basic provisions for ASCII transliterated translations in other languages ... at least until the multilingual script issue is sorted out. rgds Tin Wee "Winer, Jonathan" wrote: > > At 11:14 30-03-2000 -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > > [1] Is it useful, as a general matter, for us to agree on some > meaningful set of principles to guide the relevant ICANN body or process in > selecting new TLDs or TLD registry/pairs? It seems to me that, in the > context of the last consensus call, most folks indicated that their answer > was YES. > > To WGC: I vote yes. > > Re the Sheppard/Kleinman principles, > > I endorse them, they are better than anything else anyone has > offered to incorporate the various equities. > > > Regards, JMW > > NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone (404-881-7000) or by electronic mail (postmaster@alston.com), and delete this message and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you. > ======================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 09:52:57 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [Re: [RE: [wg-c] Excellent suggestion from slashdot -- appar - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 31-Dec-1969 Richard wrote: > Actually the idea of a registered logo/certificate is a wonderful concept, > but > almost useless in reality. Anyone can copy a logo, and anyone can dummy up > its > behavior. We've been down this road; even the ABA's own logo on its own > website differs from page to page. They tried hard on a logo, but the effort > has not caught on. Why? Liability and recognition. How's a consumer to know? > Look for the union label? Actually it is not that difficult to do right. They can copy the logo, for sure, but they can't copy the results of the link. All it takes then is for the FDIC to advertise it's program, and to educate consumers of what to look for. Tell them to click the logo, and that if it the logo is not linked that they should be suspicious. Tell them that if the logo is linked, but takes them somewhere other than the official FDIC site to be suspicious. Make a pamphlet with all of this info that consumers who are looking at online banking can order, and that they can read online. The logo is useless, I agree, without the logo being linked to an official database that confirms the status of the website flying the logo. Look at the Better Business Bureau Reliability Program for an example. http://www.bbbonline.org/r2.cfm?ID=0271000031 is the link for the website emachinetool.com. > So, while I certainly agree that a logo is a great idea, the reality is that > the DNS name is by far more recognized. It may not be how it was intended to > be used, but there it is. And it also is the absolute worst protocol to use for "security" and confidence. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ 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/ iD8DBQE46Mxp8zLmV94Pz+IRAqHhAKCBDYhXvjly0nTDL1bPpjWPDjsMPgCfYMT6 DVan+XlzlzEMwoCwTRhfzi8= =EqJ/ - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 13:07:44 -0400 From: Kendall Dawson Subject: [wg-c] re: S/K principles Mon, 03 Apr 2000 Jonathan Weinberg wrote: - ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Is this a good model for the name space, or a bad one? *Should* most new TLDs > have such mechanisms? There are some who argue that the best, bottom-up, > user-driven structure for the name space will be created by allowing users > to register where they want, and thus to define the name space in the ways > most meaningful to them. There are others who argue that that such an > approach would interfere with attempts to add value through the structure > of the name space, and would allow some registrants to destroy the utility > of the name space for others. I don't know if we should try to map the S/K principles to the *entire* namespace. For the most part the S/K principles are just honest-to-goodness common-sense (something we lack in many areas). I would say that "YES" we should have something like this for chartered TLDs. But, for unchartered and open TLDs, I don't see where these would principles would apply. Kevin brings up some valid points in his post. Most notable is the fact that com/net/org do not have this problem because they made no such pretense regarding the meaning of a name. However, IMHO, this was one of the greatest mistakes made in the current system. The lines have blurred to such a point now that it is almost laughable when someone has a ".org" address today. They could be a valid organization... but then again they could be selling hard-core porn -- it's anyone's guess. I feel that we should have both types of models. Certain TLDs (ie - .web, .info or .space) could be open and "unchartered" where anyone can register whatever name they want. There would be no restrictions on the type of name or meaning allowed here. But, other TLDs (ie - .bank, .firm, .store) should be "chartered" from the start. Anyone who qualifies or meets the requirements stated in the charter should be allowed to apply for a name under that TLD. If somebody lies or forges their credentials to obtain a name under the TLD and is found to be misrepresenting themselves - the ICANN UDRP should be used to immediately stop the abuse. (something akin to NSI pulling the plug on someone's domain until the dispute is resolved) The registry itself should not be held directly responsible for the enforcement of the namespace or as Kevin points out they would be "sued into oblivion for failure to enforce the principles". If this is going to be the case, then gTLDS will last all of about 2 months before the whole system gets mired in litigation and disputes. By having chartered TLDs we will add value to the namespace - and provide user confidence. A prime example of this in action is ".gov".... you know for a fact that if you type an address under this TLD you will get a US Government site. As web use starts to switch from PC based access to appliance or mobile access we will need a strong address / location mechanism in place. I think the only way to insure this is to force buyers of these SLDs to adhere to the conditions set forth in the charter - so that if I type boston.map into my PDA I get a map of Boston - not a steamy adult entertainment site. So, is there a reason that we can't have both models? Both chartered and unchartered TLDs ? Kendall ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 13:48:43 -0400 From: Milton Mueller Subject: Re: [wg-c] Working Group C agenda Two comments: 1. Mr. Tan: The "diversity" principle was meant to incorporate those notions. I agree, however, that it would be desirable to make more explicit the concept of cultural diversity as a principle. As you may know, position paper B included such a statement and received significant support for it in the public comments. I am sure that Kathy Kleiman would support a modification of this sort, and I suspect that P. Sheppherd would have no objections, although I cannot speak for either of them. tinwee@pobox.org.sg wrote: > Multilingualism as a basic principle Winer, Jonathan wrote: > Some registrars > may gain the reputation of being tough, even puritanical, in this area; > others so loose as to accept e-graffiti spray painted randomly on their > domains (see George Carlin's 7 dirty words, add in racial epithets, slurs on > sexual orientation, domain names based on the writings of Joseph Goebbels). > Kind of like neighborhoods in the off-line world. You decide which one you > want to live in. You decide where "property values" are likely to appreciate > over time. If you want to live in the low-rent district and that meets your > needs, pay less rent. If the penthouse view's desired, you pay more. Isn't > this what the world of AOL is all about? Jonathan:I agree with this analysis, however, it presumes a regime in which registries are free to define their own standards for registration within their TLD space. It presumes a system of competing registries that differentiate their TLD "brand" by offering differing qualities of service. Many on this list don't think registries should be able to do that. I think you outline very clearly about why it is a good idea. - --MM ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 16:04:13 -0400 From: Eric Brunner Subject: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda] Dear Jon, I think that I've asked more than once that the authors of this attempt to apply their criteria to concret examples, hell, even one they invent, for sea monkeys if they want. They haven't. Turning from the minor problem of not knowing what several instances of "apple pie" actually mean, and the equally modest nuisance of not knowing what "process or body" ("glacial" and "dead" do come annoyingly to mind) will be in fact guided by these sources of illumination, and the issue of the moment, is all this WG-B gravity optional (which I find rather funny), I'd like to remind you that the charter for WG-C does not read "to be sent down a rathole by WG-B on or about April Fools". Incidently, IMO the most important issue underlying the S/K principles is the number of times Philip can write "thanks for your important input", diddle a word (or less) and re-release his text with imaginary semantic variation. Cheers, Eric ------------------------------ Date: 03 Apr 2000 18:19:17 -0400 From: megacz@cmu.edu Subject: Re: [wg-c] why not name.space style? > Sure, we can separate authority over a name from physical hosting of > the name subtree That's already the case -- I can register ****.com through many different registrars. Put a different way, just because a name is *.com tells you NOTHING about who it was registered through. The complexity is already there. > Allowing arbitrary two-level domain names to be registered using the > existing system would be equivalent to having all those names as TLDs > The requirement that all registrations must be two levels deep is > meaningless and achieves nothing on any meaningful level except requiring > a dot somewhere in the middle of the name you register ;) True, mathematically, the two-level registration requirement is equivalent to requiring the presence of a dot. However, as somebody else wisely stated, DNS is 10% technical problems and 90% political problems. The whole point is that the human brain percieves a dot as a word-separater, thus requiring all registrations to be two words long. Thus one-word-trademark holders are forced to tack on an extra word to their trademark (hence making it specific Simply put, requiring two-word domain names eliminates the current stigma against companies that choose to register a domain name including not just their trade name, but their industry as well. > you would have registrations of www.apple and mail.apple and buy.apple, This is an excellent point. We intended the two-word requirement to allow the first word to be the trademark and the second to be the industry. It is entirely possible (as you point out) for a company to register some nonsense word in front of their company name. I would suggest that we add the requirement that the TLD under which an entity registers CAN NOT be a trademark of the company, and furthermore, the company must disclaim all trademark interests in that word. Hence, if I register apple.computers, I affirm that the word "computers" by itself is not a trademark of mine. > The hierarchical authority structure should not be blithely thrown > away. No problem. You can keep it -- just make an exception for the TLD and SLD. In other words, w.x.y.z first looks up y.z in the root server, finds the authoritative server for y.z, asks for x.y.z from that, and w.x.y.z from that. > What technical alternative are you proposing to allow arbitrary numbers of > TLDs or SLD/TLD combos (it makes no difference technically except for the > period that must be in the middle ;), and allow registrars and top level > name servers to compete (or be compensated based on a fair regulatory > structure)? Uh, leave it exactly as it is, except that you can register x.y for any value of x and any value of y, possibly subject to the abovementioned trademark restriction, and the additional restriction that y is not a gTLD (.com, .edu, etc...) > If you don't mean to allow arbitrary sld.tld names to be registered when > either sld or tld would be a contested trademark Trademarks are specific to industries. Apple owns "apple" within the context of computers. They have no claim on apple.wastemanagment. With this system, the registrars are taken out of the trademark feud -- and it's left up to the courts (where it belongs). If the TLD and SLD *TOGETHER* form a trademark (ie apple.computers), then the courts will injunct against the registration. The ambiguity of apple.com is eliminated. - aj - -- "Nobody has any 'Rights'. We are entitled only to Liberties" Adam Megacz -- for current phone/postal, see http://www.cmu.edu/cgi-bin/finger?q=megacz@andrew.cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 08:37:50 +0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: RE: [wg-c] Working Group C agenda At 10:04 AM 4/3/00 -0400, Winer, Jonathan wrote: >At 11:14 30-03-2000 -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > > [1] Is it useful, as a general matter, for us to agree on some >meaningful set of principles to guide the relevant ICANN body or process in I vote yes. >Re the Sheppard/Kleinman principles, > > I endorse them, they are better than anything else anyone has >offered to incorporate the various equities. The principles cite laudable concerns. Hence, they SEEM better than anything else, until one tries to do something practical with them. They lack any sort of means to be operationalized. Hence they will primarily serve as another platform for contention, with objectors to an action hauling out the principles, claiming non-conformance. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 22:27:29 -0400 From: Eric Brunner Subject: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda] Dear Jon, I think that I've asked more than once that the authors of this attempt to apply their criteria to concret examples, hell, even one they invent, for sea monkeys if they want. They haven't. Turning from the minor problem of not knowing what several instances of "apple pie" actually mean, and the equally modest nuisance of not knowing what "process or body" ("glacial" and "dead" do come annoyingly to mind) will be in fact guided by these sources of illumination, and the issue of the moment -- is all this WG-B gravity optional (which I find rather funny), I'd like to remind you that the charter for WG-C does not read "to be sent down a rathole on or about April Fools", nor "found choked on a sock puppet on or about the same date". Incidently, IMO the most important issue underlying the S/K principles is the number of times Philip can write "thanks for your important input", diddle a word (or less) and re-release his text with imaginary semantic variation. Cheers, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 07:04:50 +0200 (MET DST) From: DNSO Listadmin Subject: [wg-c] Invitation for Public Comments on New gTLDs/Famous Trade-Marks [ To: all WG's ] [ To: ga@dnso.org, announce@dnso.org ] [ To: council@dnso.org ] Invitation for Public Comments on New gTLDs/Famous Trade-Marks In July 1999 the DNSO Names Council set up: Working Group B -- Famous Trade-Marks Working Group C -- New gTLDs For the last nine months these two working groups have been discussing various aspects of their assigned topics. On 21 March 2000, two reports were submitted to the Names Council, and published on the http://www.dnso.org website: - http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000321.NCwgb-report.html, Working Group B status report to the Names Council, by Michael Palage - http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000321.NCwgc-report.html, Working Group C consensus report to the Names Council, by Jonathan Weinberg The DNSO Names Council invites the Internet community to comment on these reports and the issues raised by them. Please send comments to: comments-wipo@dnso.org for WG-B comments-gtlds@dnso.org for WG-C Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html The ICANN Board has requested the Names Council to provide its recommendations on these topics by 20 April 2000. The Names Council will consider the reports and comments submitted on them at its 18 April 2000 meeting. Members of the Internet community are encouraged to submit their comments as far as possible in advance of the 18 April meeting. Both reports have now been posted on the ICANN web site as well where a web-based public comment forum has been established for each report. To read the reports and comment on them, go to . DNSO Secretariat ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #71 *************************