From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #72 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Thursday, April 6 2000 Volume 01 : Number 072 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 11:31:15 -0400 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda] Summarizing the responses, so far, to my request for views on the S/K principles: Ten people have responded. They seem to agree that, as a general matter, it would be good to have some meaningful set of principles to guide the relevant ICANN body or process in selecting new TLDs or TLD registry/pairs. They're divided, though, as to whether *this* set of principles is a useful one. Four people expressed support: Bob Connelly, Milton Mueller, Jonathan Winer (I think his understanding of the principles is that they *don't* require a registry affirmatively to enforce its charter), & Kendall Dawson (on the understanding that the principles would not apply to open gTLDs). Five people expressed opposition. Kevin Connolly and Rod Dixon opposed the requirement that registries enforce limitations on registration. Mark Langston argued that there can be no adequate mechanism for telling whether a registration is consistent with a TLD's charter — registrations in a chartered TLD should be tied to the registrant's *identity*, not to the content it provides. Dave Crocker and Eric Brunner urged that the principles are too vague, & incapable of concrete application. Finally, Tin Wee made the neutral statement that any version of the principles adopted by the WG should speak to the issue of multilingualism. I suspect that the objections that have been raised by Kevin, Rod, Mark, Dave and Eric can't be addressed by redrafting. As far as the Connolly/Dixon/Langston objection is concerned, I'd expect Philip Sheppard to view the requirement that registries enforce their charters as a fundamental one, not something he could give up while maintaining the principles' utility. (Phil — am I right about this?) And I think that the set of principles that would satisfy Dave Crocker and Eric Brunner is so different from this one that one couldn't get there using this set as a starting point. (Dave, Eric — am I right about this?) There haven't been very many responses yet, and for all I know a groundswell of support for S/K is about to manifest itself. But right now, opponents outnumber supporters. Obviously, if there's to be any chance that the working group will in fact adopt the S/K principles as rough consensus, a whole lot more people will have to express support. People — it's in your hands. Jon Jonathan Weinberg co-chair, WG-C weinberg@msen.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 09:37:55 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda] At 11:31 AM 4/5/00 -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > I suspect that the objections that have been raised by Kevin, > Rod, Mark, >Dave and Eric can't be addressed by redrafting. As far as the >Connolly/Dixon/Langston objection is concerned, I'd expect Philip Sheppard >to view the requirement that registries enforce their charters as a >fundamental one, not something he could give up while maintaining the >principles' utility. (Phil — am I right about this?) And I think that the >set of principles that would satisfy Dave Crocker and Eric Brunner is so >different from this one that one couldn't get there using this set as a >starting point. (Dave, Eric — am I right about this?) I'm not entirely sure I entirely understand the query, but here's an effort to respond, for myself only: Registration restricted to conformance to a charter is a 'chartered' TLD. com/net/org represent a category that is not enforced and it is THIS category that is in need of competition. I think chartered TLDs are fine, but they are an entirely separate market from 'generic' TLDs. (Think hard about the term 'generic'. If there is a charter and it is enforced, just how 'generic' is the TLD.) com/net/org have descriptions of the intended meaning of their terms, but carry no enforcement. So, I think that requiring -- or even pursuing -- enforcement at this stage is entirely misguided and serves only to keep us from pursuing our primary task, namely to create competition for com/net/org.. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 13:34:19 -0400 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda] Jon, I've lost count of the number of times someone has attempted to find a remedy to the problems of vagueness and inapplicability. It hasn't been for want of trying. If you think you personally know what the heck S/K means please please please explain it to me. The NAA proponants (self included) have given the matter of policy, execution and cost (shared, pro-bono registry/registrar model) undertaking non-trivial thought. The EU propants also have given the matter of policy, execution and cost (EU shared, pro-bono registry/registrar model) undertaking non-trivial thought. The IETF participants (Karl and NSI employees excepted) and IAHC survivors also have given the matter of policy, execution and cost (several models) undertaking non-trivial thought. Heck, even the occasionally lucid and straight forward of the DNS goldrushers have attempted due diligence on the issue of policy, execution and cost for several models. Dinking a word and calling it soup isn't serious. You are correct that I don't consider S/K salvagable. The unfortunate part is that were I'd start (the trust issue -- who "owns" registry data) will have the same gentle effect on Chris/Milt/Roeland/... and the illusory allure of consensus, as salt on slugs. Did I mention that WG-C has some difficult to resolve conflicts of position? Did I mention that WIPO has a very different view from that of our pushy yet reticient neighbors over in WG-B? (see: http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc01/msg00496.html) Lets keep our eyes on the ball, either we are a (mostly unpaid) front for NSI, constantly fucking up the possibility of creating competition in a monopoly market, or we are going to put a finite and real set of choices on the NC's plate RSN. That we have to consider registry-specific policy models at all is a consequence of a) existing abuse, and b) anticipated abuse, and c) the inescapable hierarchy of delegation and resolution, and d) the real need to find credible cost-recovery mechanisms for operators and their agents. Kitakitamatsino, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 10:40:47 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda] > Heck, even the occasionally lucid and straight forward of the DNS goldrushers > have attempted due diligence on the issue of policy, execution and cost for > several models. No, this doesn't taint your opinion, Eric. You lost all possibility of being taken seriously long ago. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 10:58:18 -0700 From: "Bret A. Fausett" Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda] I had understood the S/K principles as having a different purpose, namely, as a guide toward the selection of the new gTLDs, not as a charter for their operation. For example, the principles would suggest that you don't add a ".biz" as an open gTLD when you have a ".com." They would, however, allow the selection of a ".biz" as a chartered gTLD in which only, say, publicly traded companies could register. Once the selection of a new gTLD is made, generic or chartered, I had assumed that the S/K principles fade away -- except perhaps to operate as a check against a chartered TLD becoming a generic one or otherwise failing to abide by the representations made during the TLD selection process (though I'm not sure how you prevent that). That was how I had read S/K anyway. -- Bret >> I suspect that the objections that have been raised by Kevin, Rod, Mark, Dave >> and Eric can't be addressed by redrafting. As far as the >> Connolly/Dixon/Langston objection is concerned, I'd expect Philip Sheppard to >> view the requirement that registries enforce their charters as a fundamental >> one, not something he could give up while maintaining the principles' >> utility. (Phil — am I right about this?) And I think that the set of >> principles that would satisfy Dave Crocker and Eric Brunner is so different >> from this one that one couldn't get there using this set as a starting point. >> (Dave, Eric — am I right about this?) > I'm not entirely sure I entirely understand the query, but here's an effort > to respond, for myself only: > > Registration restricted to conformance to a charter is a 'chartered' > TLD. com/net/org represent a category that is not enforced and it is THIS > category that is in need of competition. I think chartered TLDs are fine, > but they are an entirely separate market from 'generic' TLDs. (Think hard > about the term 'generic'. If there is a charter and it is enforced, just > how 'generic' is the TLD.) com/net/org have descriptions of the intended > meaning of their terms, but carry no enforcement. > > So, I think that requiring -- or even pursuing -- enforcement at this stage > is entirely misguided and serves only to keep us from pursuing our primary > task, namely to create competition for com/net/org.. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 11:09:18 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda] >For example, the principles would suggest that you don't add a ".biz" as an >open gTLD when you have a ".com." They would, however, allow the selection >of a ".biz" as a chartered gTLD in which only, say, publicly traded >companies could register. Why? In this case, I would rename the principles, the "Network Solutions Corporate Protection Act of 2000." - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 11:46:16 -0700 From: "Bret A. Fausett" Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda] At 11:09 AM 04/05/2000 -0700, you wrote: > >For example, the principles would suggest that you don't add a ".biz" as an > >open gTLD when you have a ".com." They would, however, allow the selection > >of a ".biz" as a chartered gTLD in which only, say, publicly traded > >companies could register. > >Why? In this case, I would rename the principles, the "Network Solutions >Corporate Protection Act of 2000." As further exposition, not defense, of the S/K principles, I read them to allow .web as an open gTLD. The reason .web differs from .biz is that "business" and "commercial" are virtually interchangeable, unless you take some affirmative step (via a charter) to differentiate them. "web" and "commercial" are not easily confused. Amazon.biz and Amazon.com -- if registered by separate companies -- might too easily confuse the user community. Amazon.web and Amazon.com, each with a distinct registrant, are much easier to envision coexisting in the same space without user confusion. That's my casual attempt to apply the principles. Others may have a different understanding of what they are meant to do or how they would be applied. -- Bret (my second and last for the day) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 14:47:53 -0400 From: "Winer, Jonathan" Subject: RE: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda] Jonathan Weinberg, et al, I would like to take another crack at encouraging this group to think through the implications of applying the S/K principles to TLDs and registries. My earlier posting suggested that as a matter of practice, enforcement would (likely) be handled differently among different registries. I wish to expand upon the thoughts I had earler: Seems to me there is likely to be little incentive for ICANN or any other entity exercising a quasi-judicial regulatory function, to police how well registries are carrying out their function of staying within their mandates, except in cases of behavior sufficiently outrageous that substantial consensus emerged that "something must be done" such as already has begun by ICANN to deal with cybersquats. For the most part, whoever is administering the tld will in practice self-regulate, and the market response to that self-regulation will determine market niche and market success. If one were to accept this view, the adoption of "principles" serves as guidance not law; standards to be applied in general, but not immutably; practices to be encouraged but where reasonable people may differ as to application. How the principles would be applied concretely comes down to concrete registration mechanisms -- do you have a human mind reviewing the applications, or just accept every formulation submitted electronically -- it's a choice the registry makes -- and dispute-resolution techniques used by the registries when things go wrong, backed in extreme cases by the possibility of revocation of administrative responsibility in the event that a registrar's practices have created sufficient damage to the domain system as a whole to create the juice for the sanction of revocation or suspension. This approach vitiates the question of whether the principles are absolutely precise, absolutely enforceable, absolutely the best possible formulation, or have meaning. If they do not prove to have meaning in practice, what harm will have been done? If they do, they will have added such value as they add. As to whether they should be inherent in a "charter" or only used to guide in selecting new gtlds, as Bret A. Fausett's posting suggested, why not both? Chris Ambler's characterization of this as a NSI monopoly protection act need not prove to be true except to the extent that existing registrations have already created global recognition of particular trademarks for which it is a desirable thing for consumers that confusion not take place (the dueling over the alta vista site was a real pain for those of us who just wanted to use the browser but kept going to the wrong place). I'm cautious about open or non-chartered TLDs, because of their potential for abuse, but an experiment or two with them might answer some of the questions with the thought that if things turn really ugly, consumers can choice to avoid them, and if they turn out not to cause problems, we will have learned something. Finally, on Tim Wee's issue of multilingualism, some bright software designer will some day integrate into the domain name system an auto-translation plug-in that makes .com and .org and .net readable whether the characters used by the writer are in roman, Cyrillic, Arabic or Chinese ideograms. In the meantime, anything we can do to foster multilingual TLD selections is surely desirable. - -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:weinberg@mail.msen.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2000 11:31 AM To: wg-c@dnso.org Cc: philip.sheppard@aim.be Subject: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda] Summarizing the responses, so far, to my request for views on the S/K principles: Ten people have responded. They seem to agree that, as a general matter, it would be good to have some meaningful set of principles to guide the relevant ICANN body or process in selecting new TLDs or TLD registry/pairs. They're divided, though, as to whether *this* set of principles is a useful one. Four people expressed support: Bob Connelly, Milton Mueller, Jonathan Winer (I think his understanding of the principles is that they *don't* require a registry affirmatively to enforce its charter), & Kendall Dawson (on the understanding that the principles would not apply to open gTLDs). Five people expressed opposition. Kevin Connolly and Rod Dixon opposed the requirement that registries enforce limitations on registration. Mark Langston argued that there can be no adequate mechanism for telling whether a registration is consistent with a TLD's charter - registrations in a chartered TLD should be tied to the registrant's *identity*, not to the content it provides. Dave Crocker and Eric Brunner urged that the principles are too vague, & incapable of concrete application. Finally, Tin Wee made the neutral statement that any version of the principles adopted by the WG should speak to the issue of multilingualism. I suspect that the objections that have been raised by Kevin, Rod, Mark, Dave and Eric can't be addressed by redrafting. As far as the Connolly/Dixon/Langston objection is concerned, I'd expect Philip Sheppard to view the requirement that registries enforce their charters as a fundamental one, not something he could give up while maintaining the principles' utility. (Phil - am I right about this?) And I think that the set of principles that would satisfy Dave Crocker and Eric Brunner is so different from this one that one couldn't get there using this set as a starting point. (Dave, Eric - am I right about this?) There haven't been very many responses yet, and for all I know a groundswell of support for S/K is about to manifest itself. But right now, opponents outnumber supporters. Obviously, if there's to be any chance that the working group will in fact adopt the S/K principles as rough consensus, a whole lot more people will have to express support. People - it's in your hands. Jon Jonathan Weinberg co-chair, WG-C weinberg@msen.com 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: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 11:55:02 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda] > I'm cautious about open or non-chartered TLDs, because of their > potential for abuse, but an experiment or two with them might answer some of > the questions with the thought that if things turn really ugly, consumers > can choice to avoid them, and if they turn out not to cause problems, we > will have learned something. Isn't that what the UDRP is supposed to solve? It either works or it doesn't. If it works, then there's no reason to limit (or revisit). If it doesn't work, then we should remove it entirely. Can't have it both ways, though... - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 20:19:03 +0200 From: Javier SOLA Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda] I agree with Dave. Even for chartered cTLDs it would be very complicated for a registry to police the use of the gTLD worldwide and in many different languages. Even if it was possible, the role of the registry would be considerably changed, and its costs would be very different, raising the costs for the final users. Enforcement of chartered gTLDs can only be done a-posteriori and based on dispute resolution if any part considers that violation of the charter goes against its interests. I believe that any principles would have to be part of the gTLD's charter, and specify in which cases the domain holder would lose the right to use that domain for improper use. Javier >Registration restricted to conformance to a charter is a 'chartered' >TLD. com/net/org represent a category that is not enforced and it is THIS >category that is in need of competition. I think chartered TLDs are fine, >but they are an entirely separate market from 'generic' TLDs. (Think hard >about the term 'generic'. If there is a charter and it is enforced, just >how 'generic' is the TLD.) com/net/org have descriptions of the intended >meaning of their terms, but carry no enforcement. > >So, I think that requiring -- or even pursuing -- enforcement at this >stage is entirely misguided and serves only to keep us from pursuing our >primary task, namely to create competition for com/net/org.. > >d/ > >=-=-=-=-= >Dave Crocker >Brandenburg Consulting >Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 >675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 18:09:08 -0400 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda] Jon Winer writes: [snip] ... > This approach vitiates the question of whether the principles ... have > meaning. Now there is a phrase one doesn't see every day. A cure for nothingness. > ... If they do not prove to have meaning in practice, what harm > will have been done? None, assuming that we are not laboring in an absurdly politicised field of transparent, well-understood technical landmarks, and everyone is on their best behavior, wearing their Sunday-go-to-Church suits. It was before Jon Winer's time, but one of the funnier moments in the life of WG-C was when a Harvard 1L dropped in last Fall (LA meeting period) and announced with a straight face that ignorance was an adequate basis to make an objective judgement of the contending positions (she picked B whch gave Milt a flutter. This had a second level of humor as Milt's position is in essence that nothing can (or should) be known, as the Market-Will-Provide). Now, if you get Phil to add one harmless little principle, the "Early Picasso Principle", that all new gTLDs must be colored _blue_, then I'll take a new interest in things that don't mean anything and couldn't hurt if they did. Kitakitamatsino, Eric P.S. Welcome back Javier!!! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 23:41:18 -0400 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda] I think we may be getting somewhere. Most of the comments (aside from Eric's) are focusing on two issues: [1] the idea that chartered TLDs are only one part of the name space; and [2] the problems inherent in any rigid rule requiring particular sorts of enforcement from TLD registries. (The first set of comments echos the results of our last straw poll, in which a strong majority of respondents were of the view that there should be both open and restricted TLDs). So I've taken a shot at a revised version of S/K, to eliminate those problems. The guidelines that follow reorganize Philip's principles; reword them very slightly; and (most importantly) eliminate principle #1 ("a gTLD should give the net user confidence that it stands for what it purports to stand for") in favor of the new language in guidelines 1 and 3. We can't call the result "S/K" anymore, since I don't know whether either Sheppard or Kleiman will support it, but it may be a document that most of us can agree on. (I don't think we should address multilingualism in this document. I personally favor multilingualism, but it's a controversial issue currently being addressed in the IETF and elsewhere, and deserves a WG of its own; we shouldn't just throw in language about it at the last minute.) What do people think? Jon Guidelines for the initial rollout of new gTLDs 1. The initial rollout should include both open, unrestricted TLDs and chartered TLDs with more limited scope. (In these guidelines, the term "gTLD" is used to refer to both.) 2. An application for a chartered TLD should explain what meaning will be imputed to the proposed TLD string, and how the new TLD will be perceived by the relevant population of net users. 3. An application for a chartered TLD should explain how the registry will enforce the charter. Possible enforcement mechanisms may be as simple as registrant self-selection (relying on the principle that registrants will typically not find it desirable to locate in incongruous TLDs) or as elaborate as pre-registration screening by the registry. 4. These guidelines should not be read to impose overly bureaucratic procedures on registries. 5. 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. 6. A gTLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for malicious or criminal elements who wish to defraud net users. 7. New gTLDs should foster competition in the supply of domain names and in the provision of Internet applications and services. The authorization process for new gTLDs should not be used as a means of protecting existing service providers from competition. 8. New gTLDs should foster the expression of views, both commercial and non-commercial. 9. New gTLDs should become available to meet the needs of an expanding Internet community. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 21:16:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Rick H Wesson Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda] Jonathan, On Wed, 5 Apr 2000, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > > Guidelines for the initial rollout of new gTLDs > > 1. The initial rollout should include both open, unrestricted TLDs and > chartered TLDs with more limited scope. (In these guidelines, the term > "gTLD" is used to refer to both.) I think that calling both chartered and shaired 'generic' TLDs is a mistake that will confuse issues down the road. I sould support a document that made the distcinction between the two. > 2. An application for a chartered TLD should explain what meaning will be > imputed to the proposed TLD string, and how the new TLD will be perceived > by the relevant population of net users. we will never know how a TLD will be percieved by the public, changing the perspective here will also make things clearer, rather than 'perceived' change it to "marketed by the registry." > 3. An application for a chartered TLD should explain how the registry will > enforce the charter. Possible enforcement mechanisms may be as simple as > registrant self-selection (relying on the principle that registrants will > typically not find it desirable to locate in incongruous TLDs) or as > elaborate as pre-registration screening by the registry. ICANN was never setup to provide Enforcement, Enforcement is a slippery slope with chartered TLDs I think folks need to show that they have thought through the issues that a chartered TLD and Enforcement will evolve. > 4. These guidelines should not be read to impose overly bureaucratic > procedures on registries. this statement glosses over implementation issues which are yet to be defined. It soulnds nice, but we need principals that can be allplied not ones that just make us feel good. The rest of the principals I feel comfortable with but don't understand how that can be applied. - -rick ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 17:01:13 +1000 From: Andrew Dalgleish Subject: RE: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda] > Guidelines for the initial rollout of new gTLDs > > 1. The initial rollout should include both open, unrestricted TLDs and > chartered TLDs with more limited scope. (In these guidelines, the > term > "gTLD" is used to refer to both.) > > 2. An application for a chartered TLD should explain what meaning will > be > imputed to the proposed TLD string, and how the new TLD will be > perceived > by the relevant population of net users. > > 3. An application for a chartered TLD should explain how the registry > will > enforce the charter. Possible enforcement mechanisms may be as simple > as > registrant self-selection (relying on the principle that registrants > will > typically not find it desirable to locate in incongruous TLDs) or as > elaborate as pre-registration screening by the registry. > > 4. These guidelines should not be read to impose overly bureaucratic > procedures on registries. > > 5. 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. > > 6. A gTLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for > malicious or > criminal elements who wish to defraud net users. > > 7. New gTLDs should foster competition in the supply of domain names > and in > the provision of Internet applications and services. The > authorization > process for new gTLDs should not be used as a means of protecting > existing > service providers from competition. > > 8. New gTLDs should foster the expression of views, both commercial > and > non-commercial. > > 9. New gTLDs should become available to meet the needs of an expanding > Internet community. [Andrew Dalgleish] Re points 7 & 9 These are a "given" - that is why we are here. :-) Re points 1,2,3,8 "open" TLDs are simply a special case of "chartered" TLDs, with a charter that is less selective than other charters. I believe that all applications for a TLD should include a charter, proposed enforcement mechanism, etc, even if the charter is "we have no charter". This allows for open/closed, commercial/noncommercial TLDs. All such TLDs have a place in the community. Re points 5 & 6: How do you propose to avoid confusing users? (And confusion is almost a required step to commit fraud.) I doubt there is a suitable legal definition (which applies globally) which would say "No, that TLD string is confusing". From the casual internet user's point of view, the difficult part is identifying any meaning from the TLD string. At present some TLDs have meaning (.edu), some do not (.com). The meaning of these TLDs is available to the casual user, but I doubt many casual users could tell you where. With a proliferation of TLDs, identifying a TLDs charter (or lack of) will only become more difficult. A TLD string is probably too short to convey any real meaning, particularly in multiple languages. For example, I'm sure "gov" does not mean government in all languages, yet the implication of the current ".gov" is that ".gov.xx" will be the relevent government for the country code xx. (What happens if a country has a coup?) I think we need to provide a mechanism for the casual user to access a TLDs charter, perhaps via a link like "TLD.charter.icann", where the suffix is (or becomes) a "widely known" authority. If a TLD has no charter, the casual user should be able to identify that (to protect them from TLDs which sound secure, but are not). If a TLD is for banks insured by the government of the day, the casual user should be able to identify that (to boost consumer confidence). Is this two-character TLD really the "official" cc? Have I even got the right country? "xx.charter.icann" will tell you. Of course, this does not address the problems where the charter is not in the user's native language, or worse, "legalese". (Can you write "legalese" in Esperanto? :-) Regards, Andrew Dalgleish ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 12:19:25 +0200 From: Javier SOLA Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda] Jon, I see in these principles a mix of different ideas with different goals. I believe that this could be structured in separate questions or documents: 1.- A question with guideline 1: ¿ Should some of the new gTLDs mandatorily be chartered and some not? 2.- A question: ¿should control of chartered gTLDs be done by the registry or should there be a UDRP that solves infractions. 3.- A document with requirements for chartered gTLD proposals. 4.- A document with requirements that the set of chosen initial gTLDs must meet. Plese see more specific comments below. Javier >Guidelines for the initial rollout of new gTLDs > >1. The initial rollout should include both open, unrestricted TLDs and >chartered TLDs with more limited scope. (In these guidelines, the term >"gTLD" is used to refer to both.) This has very strong implications. It mandates that both types of gTLDs be created within the original set. I don't know if this is good or bad, but it is important enough not to be bundled with other principles and treated independently. >2. An application for a chartered TLD should explain what meaning will be >imputed to the proposed TLD string, and how the new TLD will be perceived >by the relevant population of net users. > >3. An application for a chartered TLD should explain how the registry will >enforce the charter. Possible enforcement mechanisms may be as simple as >registrant self-selection (relying on the principle that registrants will >typically not find it desirable to locate in incongruous TLDs) or as >elaborate as pre-registration screening by the registry. This implies that the registry is in charge of "enforcement". All legal procedures for "ilegal" use would go against the registry, instead of against an ilegal registrat. The registry could go broke very quickly just with legal expenses just participating in all these cases. >4. These guidelines should not be read to impose overly bureaucratic >procedures on registries. Any control by the registrant in a multi-national environment would be extremelly heavy in procedure. The success of .com resides in the easiness of registration. >5. 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 makes sense. >6. A gTLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for malicious or >criminal elements who wish to defraud net users. Oportunities for malicious registrants are controled by UDRP >7. New gTLDs should foster competition in the supply of domain names and in >the provision of Internet applications and services. The authorization >process for new gTLDs should not be used as a means of protecting existing >service providers from competition. The term "competition in the supply of domain names" implies a for-profit registry mode. I would have a problem with that. >8. New gTLDs should foster the expression of views, both commercial and >non-commercial. I cannot find the sense of this, it is far to vague. >9. New gTLDs should become available to meet the needs of an expanding >Internet community. We have aready done this by deciding on the creation of new gTLDs. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 07:05:24 -0400 From: "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." Subject: RE: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda] I think these guidelines are reasonable. I support the WG-C's adoption of them. Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. www.cyberspaces.org rod@cyberspaces.org > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of > Jonathan Weinberg > Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2000 11:41 PM > To: wg-c@dnso.org > Cc: philip.sheppard@aim.be > Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda] > > > I think we may be getting somewhere. Most of the comments > (aside from > Eric's) are focusing on two issues: [1] the idea that chartered TLDs are > only one part of the name space; and [2] the problems inherent in > any rigid > rule requiring particular sorts of enforcement from TLD registries. (The > first set of comments echos the results of our last straw poll, in which a > strong majority of respondents were of the view that there should be both > open and restricted TLDs). > > So I've taken a shot at a revised version of S/K, to eliminate those > problems. The guidelines that follow reorganize Philip's principles; > reword them very slightly; and (most importantly) eliminate principle #1 > ("a gTLD should give the net user confidence that it stands for what it > purports to stand for") in favor of the new language in > guidelines 1 and 3. > We can't call the result "S/K" anymore, since I don't know whether either > Sheppard or Kleiman will support it, but it may be a document that most of > us can agree on. > > (I don't think we should address multilingualism in this > document. I > personally favor multilingualism, but it's a controversial issue currently > being addressed in the IETF and elsewhere, and deserves a WG of > its own; we > shouldn't just throw in language about it at the last minute.) > > What do people think? > > Jon > > > Guidelines for the initial rollout of new gTLDs > > 1. The initial rollout should include both open, unrestricted TLDs and > chartered TLDs with more limited scope. (In these guidelines, the term > "gTLD" is used to refer to both.) > > 2. An application for a chartered TLD should explain what meaning will be > imputed to the proposed TLD string, and how the new TLD will be perceived > by the relevant population of net users. > > 3. An application for a chartered TLD should explain how the registry will > enforce the charter. Possible enforcement mechanisms may be as simple as > registrant self-selection (relying on the principle that registrants will > typically not find it desirable to locate in incongruous TLDs) or as > elaborate as pre-registration screening by the registry. > > 4. These guidelines should not be read to impose overly bureaucratic > procedures on registries. > > 5. 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. > > 6. A gTLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for malicious or > criminal elements who wish to defraud net users. > > 7. New gTLDs should foster competition in the supply of domain > names and in > the provision of Internet applications and services. The authorization > process for new gTLDs should not be used as a means of protecting existing > service providers from competition. > > 8. New gTLDs should foster the expression of views, both commercial and > non-commercial. > > 9. New gTLDs should become available to meet the needs of an expanding > Internet community. > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 11:03:08 -0400 From: James Love Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda] Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > Guidelines for the initial rollout of new gTLDs > > 1. The initial rollout should include both open, unrestricted TLDs and > chartered TLDs with more limited scope. (In these guidelines, the term > "gTLD" is used to refer to both.) I think the term "generic" with respect to tlds is quite confusing. What we have are the 2 digit country code TLDs, and everything else. > 2. An application for a chartered TLD should explain what meaning will be > imputed to the proposed TLD string, and how the new TLD will be perceived > by the relevant population of net users. Of course I support the issuance of both restricted and unrestricted TLDs, but I would not put it this way. The "meaning" will depend upon use, and use will depend upon a combination of customer and the restrictions on registration. In general, a differentiated TLD, like .software or .flowers, would have some obvious meaning, because of the string, but need not be restricted. But a .union, .usbank, or .organic, would be examples of TLDs that would be candidates for restrictions on registrations. > 3. An application for a chartered TLD should explain how the registry will > enforce the charter. Possible enforcement mechanisms may be as simple as > registrant self-selection (relying on the principle that registrants will > typically not find it desirable to locate in incongruous TLDs) or as > elaborate as pre-registration screening by the registry. I think it would be useful to discuss these issues. However, the issue of ICANN's role in enforcing early (version .1) management systems isn't obvious. What if groups have good reasons to change management systems. Do they have to get ICANN's permission each time? Also, "pre-registration screening" need not be referred to as exotic or elaborate, particularly as we really expand the TLD space, and different management models are explored. > > 4. These guidelines should not be read to impose overly bureaucratic > procedures on registries. I don't think this should be a rule, for a variety of reasons. Who would decide what is "overly bureaucratic"? I think more important is who will decide how to manage the TLD. If the US government manages .mil or .gov, I think they can do what they want, without ICANN oversight. Same with a .union TLD managed by unions, or a .usbank TLD if managed by US FDIC. The most important decision will be, who will become the registry. Then, I think in most cases, you leave the registry alone. > 5. 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. I think a TLD that is differentiated presents fewer conflicts for trademark owners. Clearly .software is different than .company, .zone, or .mall. However, there is not reason why .com should not face competition for the undifferentiated space. Lots of names work better with .zone, .web, company, etc, than with .com, so why accept NSI's monopoly? > 6. A gTLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for malicious or > criminal elements who wish to defraud net users. Huh? How will this be interpreted? If you want to avoid issuances of TLDs that are so similiar they cannot be easily distinquished, or that would be misleading if not restricted (.fdicinsured open to everyone, for example), then just say so. The statement above seems to open ended. > 7. New gTLDs should foster competition in the supply of domain names and in > the provision of Internet applications and services. The authorization > process for new gTLDs should not be used as a means of protecting existing > service providers from competition. Good to recognize the anticompetive issues. Even better to not be anticompetitive. > 8. New gTLDs should foster the expression of views, both commercial and > non-commercial. "foster" might be replaced with "enable". > 9. New gTLDs should become available to meet the needs of an expanding > Internet community. - -- ======================================================= James Love, Director | http://www.cptech.org Consumer Project on Technology | mailto:love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367 | voice: 1.202.387.8030 Washington, DC 20036 | fax: 1.202.234.5176 ======================================================= ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #72 *************************