From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #73 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Friday, April 7 2000 Volume 01 : Number 073 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 11:24:10 -0400 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda] A bunch of thoughts in response to Rick, Andrew D, Javier and Jamie: 1. In seeking to tweak the S/K principles, I have the great luxury that I didn't write them, so I have no pride of authorship. I don't want to get too far away, though, from the initial *goal* of the S/K principles, which was to see if we could find a point of accommodation that would satisfy both folks like Kathy, who is committed to substantial namespace expansion and market competition, and folks like Philip, who believes that expansion will be safe only if the namespace is structured in an appropriate manner. (As Eric has pointed out, there's an obvious tension between getting the principles general enough so that they can win consensus, and specific enough so that they actually have bite.) 2. We turn out to be operating under a really tight timeframe. I mentioned in an earlier message that the NC is going to be transmitting its recommendations to the ICANN Board on April 20, and that we likely need to get our own recommendations to them before that date if they were to be useful. Well, the NC has now scheduled a meeting and vote for April 18. So if we're to get our recommendations to them by (say) April 17, and we allow a week for a formal consensus call, that means we need to settle on the text of our proposed rough consensus points by April 10, which is . . . well . . . this Monday. So we need to work fast if we're to accomplish anything. 3. I think it's valuable that we include language directing that both open and restricted TLDs be included in the original set. This isn't a new issue: There was a strong majority in favor of this proposition in the straw poll we took back in February. I announced at the time that I wanted to issue a formal consensus call on the issue, but I pulled back because I didn't want to tread on Philip's toes (that is, I wanted to give S/K a fair chance to succeed before calling for a vote on a related point). 4. On the "gTLD" terminology: Our charter calls on us to make recommendations concerning "gTLDs." The term "gTLD," *as used in the WG charter*, encompasses both open and chartered gTLDs. (For example, the WG charter treats the question as open whether "each new gTLD [should] have a specific charter." This isn't so crazy as some folks think; it's consistent with RFC 1591, in which Jon Postel referred to EDU, GOV, MIL and INT as all falling within the category of "generic TLDs.") Several people have urged that we'd do better to adopt the IAHC terminology, under which restricted TLDs and gTLDs are different classes of beasts. I've got no objection to that in principle, but I don't want to set up a terminology that leaves us open to the (incorrect) objection that recommendations concerning chartered TLDs are beyond our authority. My inclination, at this point, is just to avoid using the term "gTLD" at all, to the extent we can -- but I'm open to other ideas. 5. I've revised the last draft of the principles (guidelines, whatever) to address the rest of the points people have made. One of my goals was to make clear that though we are requiring applicants to think about enforcement issues, and to discuss them in the application, we are *not* requiring applicants to adopt any particular enforcement mechanism, and in particular we are not requiring them to control registrations: An applicant might simply explain that it will be relying on registrants to choose the particular TLD only if they feel they belong there. As Jamie points out, this will depend on the nature of the TLD. So here's my most recent attempt. Bouquets and brickbats welcomed. Jon - - - - - 1. The initial rollout of six to ten new gTLDs, followed by an evaluation period, should include both open, unrestricted TLDs and chartered TLDs with more limited scope. 2. An application for a chartered TLD should explain what meaning will be imputed to the proposed TLD string, and how the applicant contemplates that the new TLD will be perceived by the relevant population of net users. 3. An application for a chartered TLD should explain the mechanism(s) for charter enforcement. The simplest possible enforcement mechanisms is registrant self-selection: that is, if .AUTOMOBILES is set up for entities in some way associated with the automobile world, the applicant might simply rely on its understanding that other entities will have no interest in registering in that TLD. Alternatively, an applicant might choose a more elaborate, registry-driven enforcement mechanism. 4. The selection of a TLD string should not confuse net users, and so TLDs should be clearly differentiated by the string and/or by the marketing and functionality associated with the string. 5. New TLDs are important to meet the needs of an expanding Internet community. They should serve both commercial and noncommercial goals. The authorization process for new TLDs should not be used as a means of protecting existing service providers from competition. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 17:16:21 +0100 From: Jean-Michel Becar Subject: RE: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda] Jon; Sorry for not having more time to contribute to this very intersting debate, but I would like here to put my 2cts. I fully support the terminology gTLD = Generic Top Level Domain (chartered or not) this makes the distinction between the ccTLDs (attached to a country at least by its 2 letter code, the policy and usage of it is something else) and the gTLDs which don't have any links to any particular country. I have a little worry about the S/K principles and in particular with the principle #5 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. The problem will be the string, for example .union has a complete different meaning in France (so in french) than in English !!!!!!! and may be it's an insult in some other language...so Do we have the goal to invent a global language???????? I take the opportunity to say something: We try or people want us here we fix all the problems which don't have an answer in the real world (vs virtual world = Internet), I mean people from IP community want us we fix their problem of trademarks on the net but this problem exists on the real world and they don't have any idea how to fix it. For example we have 3 differents trademarks for Mont Blanc in France, which one has a right in .com !!!!!!! And now S/K try to fix the problem of universal language !!!!! Just my thoughs. Jean-Michel Becar E.T.S.I. - -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:weinberg@mail.msen.com] Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 5:24 PM To: wg-c@dnso.org Cc: philip.sheppard@aim.be Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda] A bunch of thoughts in response to Rick, Andrew D, Javier and Jamie: 1. In seeking to tweak the S/K principles, I have the great luxury that I didn't write them, so I have no pride of authorship. I don't want to get too far away, though, from the initial *goal* of the S/K principles, which was to see if we could find a point of accommodation that would satisfy both folks like Kathy, who is committed to substantial namespace expansion and market competition, and folks like Philip, who believes that expansion will be safe only if the namespace is structured in an appropriate manner. (As Eric has pointed out, there's an obvious tension between getting the principles general enough so that they can win consensus, and specific enough so that they actually have bite.) 2. We turn out to be operating under a really tight timeframe. I mentioned in an earlier message that the NC is going to be transmitting its recommendations to the ICANN Board on April 20, and that we likely need to get our own recommendations to them before that date if they were to be useful. Well, the NC has now scheduled a meeting and vote for April 18. So if we're to get our recommendations to them by (say) April 17, and we allow a week for a formal consensus call, that means we need to settle on the text of our proposed rough consensus points by April 10, which is . . . well . . . this Monday. So we need to work fast if we're to accomplish anything. 3. I think it's valuable that we include language directing that both open and restricted TLDs be included in the original set. This isn't a new issue: There was a strong majority in favor of this proposition in the straw poll we took back in February. I announced at the time that I wanted to issue a formal consensus call on the issue, but I pulled back because I didn't want to tread on Philip's toes (that is, I wanted to give S/K a fair chance to succeed before calling for a vote on a related point). 4. On the "gTLD" terminology: Our charter calls on us to make recommendations concerning "gTLDs." The term "gTLD," *as used in the WG charter*, encompasses both open and chartered gTLDs. (For example, the WG charter treats the question as open whether "each new gTLD [should] have a specific charter." This isn't so crazy as some folks think; it's consistent with RFC 1591, in which Jon Postel referred to EDU, GOV, MIL and INT as all falling within the category of "generic TLDs.") Several people have urged that we'd do better to adopt the IAHC terminology, under which restricted TLDs and gTLDs are different classes of beasts. I've got no objection to that in principle, but I don't want to set up a terminology that leaves us open to the (incorrect) objection that recommendations concerning chartered TLDs are beyond our authority. My inclination, at this point, is just to avoid using the term "gTLD" at all, to the extent we can -- but I'm open to other ideas. 5. I've revised the last draft of the principles (guidelines, whatever) to address the rest of the points people have made. One of my goals was to make clear that though we are requiring applicants to think about enforcement issues, and to discuss them in the application, we are *not* requiring applicants to adopt any particular enforcement mechanism, and in particular we are not requiring them to control registrations: An applicant might simply explain that it will be relying on registrants to choose the particular TLD only if they feel they belong there. As Jamie points out, this will depend on the nature of the TLD. So here's my most recent attempt. Bouquets and brickbats welcomed. Jon - - - - - 1. The initial rollout of six to ten new gTLDs, followed by an evaluation period, should include both open, unrestricted TLDs and chartered TLDs with more limited scope. 2. An application for a chartered TLD should explain what meaning will be imputed to the proposed TLD string, and how the applicant contemplates that the new TLD will be perceived by the relevant population of net users. 3. An application for a chartered TLD should explain the mechanism(s) for charter enforcement. The simplest possible enforcement mechanisms is registrant self-selection: that is, if .AUTOMOBILES is set up for entities in some way associated with the automobile world, the applicant might simply rely on its understanding that other entities will have no interest in registering in that TLD. Alternatively, an applicant might choose a more elaborate, registry-driven enforcement mechanism. 4. The selection of a TLD string should not confuse net users, and so TLDs should be clearly differentiated by the string and/or by the marketing and functionality associated with the string. 5. New TLDs are important to meet the needs of an expanding Internet community. They should serve both commercial and noncommercial goals. The authorization process for new TLDs should not be used as a means of protecting existing service providers from competition. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 14:42:31 -0400 From: Kendall Dawson Subject: [wg-c] Guidelines for the initial rollout of new gTLDs Wed, 05 Apr 2000 Jonathan Weinberg wrote: - --------------------------------------------------------------- > What do people think? I agree that we do need both open and restricted (chartered) TLDs. Since we can't call them the S/K principles, why not call them the "WG-C Guidelines"? I do think that "guidelines" is a good word though because you will never find a "one-size-fits-all" set of rules that will work in every situation. If you have some guides like this to go by - it will allow the board to make decisions faster and with less doubt because these guideline will suggest the things that should be considered before creating a gTLD. > 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 agree. > 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. I think this is a bit unclear. I would instead say something like this: "An application for a chartered (or restricted) TLD should explain the intended meaning of the string as it will be presented to the population of net users. Are there any known meanings besides the intended meaning that may be interpreted by the general public?" > 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 have to disagree with this point as well. I do not think that the registry should be the ones who are tasked with the job of enforcement. NSI has had always been "blessed" with the fact that it is untouchable. They are not in the enforcement business - and they never got dragged down that rat hole. The UDRP and the courts should be the ones deciding on the enforcement based on the guidelines established in the charter. If the owner of the SLD is in violation of the charter - then the registry would be ordered by the court to revoke the name of the offender. But, the registry should not make these decisions on their own. If the UDRP does not work --- than why even have it ??? > 4. These guidelines should not be read to impose overly bureaucratic > procedures on registries. I agree (this should not be a numbered item - this should be at the head of this list !!) > 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 agree. > 6. A gTLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for malicious or > criminal elements who wish to defraud net users. I would change last sentence to: "...who wish to defraud *or confuse* 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. I agree. > 8. New gTLDs should foster the expression of views, both commercial and > non-commercial. I would even go as far to suggest a NEW gTLD specifically for non-commercial entities. Since commercial interests bring lots of money to the table - their views are ALWAYS going to be heard. But, special provisions should be made for non-commercial entities to have protected name space that can't be infringed upon by commercial interests. I agree with James Love on some issues concerning this. > 9. New gTLDs should become available to meet the needs of an expanding > Internet community. I agree. I would even go as far to say: "..available immediately to meet the needs of an expanding community and networked infrastructure." It is not just people on the Net anymore... new devices are coming online everyday - and we need to accommodate all the nodes being connected. Kendall ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 13:53:50 -0700 From: Justin McCarthy Subject: [wg-c] S/K Principles I vote yes to using the S/K principles as a starting point in our efforts to make the guidelines practical/applicable. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 10:55:16 +0800 From: tinwee@pobox.org.sg Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda] > The problem will be the string, for example .union has a complete different > meaning in France (so in french) than in English !!!!!!! and may be it's an > insult in some other language...so Do we have the goal to invent a global > language???????? This is all the more reason there should be support for multilingualism to be fair to all languages and peoples of the world. Where there is a conflict in another language as described above, the opposing parties should seek conflict resolution. But this should not prevent the Internet from being globalised, supporting languages of various peoples of different races. Since Internet is widespread today - even the villages in India and hills of Bhutan are getting access - it is imperative that internet principles such as the S/K principles should be internationalized. bestrgds Tan Tin Wee National University of Singapore tinwee@bic.nus.edu.sg Jean-Michel Becar wrote: > > Jon; > > Sorry for not having more time to contribute to this very intersting debate, > but I would like here to put my 2cts. > > I fully support the terminology gTLD = Generic Top Level Domain (chartered > or not) this makes the distinction between the ccTLDs (attached to a country > at least by its 2 letter code, the policy and usage of it is something else) > and the gTLDs which don't have any links to any particular country. > > I have a little worry about the S/K principles and in particular with the > principle #5 > > 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. > > The problem will be the string, for example .union has a complete different > meaning in France (so in french) than in English !!!!!!! and may be it's an > insult in some other language...so Do we have the goal to invent a global > language???????? > > I take the opportunity to say something: We try or people want us here we > fix all the problems which don't have an answer in the real world (vs > virtual world = Internet), I mean people from IP community want us we fix > their problem of trademarks on the net but this problem exists on the real > world and they don't have any idea how to fix it. For example we have 3 > differents trademarks for Mont Blanc in France, which one has a right in > >.com !!!!!!! And now S/K try to fix the problem of universal language !!!!! > > Just my thoughs. > > Jean-Michel Becar > E.T.S.I. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:weinberg@mail.msen.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 5:24 PM > To: wg-c@dnso.org > Cc: philip.sheppard@aim.be > Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda] > > A bunch of thoughts in response to Rick, Andrew D, Javier and Jamie: > > 1. In seeking to tweak the S/K principles, I have the great luxury > that I > didn't write them, so I have no pride of authorship. I don't want to get > too far away, though, from the initial *goal* of the S/K principles, which > was to see if we could find a point of accommodation that would satisfy > both folks like Kathy, who is committed to substantial namespace expansion > and market competition, and folks like Philip, who believes that expansion > will be safe only if the namespace is structured in an appropriate manner. > (As Eric has pointed out, there's an obvious tension between getting the > principles general enough so that they can win consensus, and specific > enough so that they actually have bite.) > > 2. We turn out to be operating under a really tight timeframe. I > mentioned in an earlier message that the NC is going to be transmitting its > recommendations to the ICANN Board on April 20, and that we likely need to > get our own recommendations to them before that date if they were to be > useful. Well, the NC has now scheduled a meeting and vote for April 18. > So if we're to get our recommendations to them by (say) April 17, and we > allow a week for a formal consensus call, that means we need to settle on > the text of our proposed rough consensus points by April 10, which is . . . > well . . . this Monday. So we need to work fast if we're to accomplish > anything. > > 3. I think it's valuable that we include language directing that > both open > and restricted TLDs be included in the original set. This isn't a new > issue: There was a strong majority in favor of this proposition in the > straw poll we took back in February. I announced at the time that I wanted > to issue a formal consensus call on the issue, but I pulled back because I > didn't want to tread on Philip's toes (that is, I wanted to give S/K a fair > chance to succeed before calling for a vote on a related point). > > 4. On the "gTLD" terminology: Our charter calls on us to make > recommendations concerning "gTLDs." The term "gTLD," *as used in the WG > charter*, encompasses both open and chartered gTLDs. (For example, the WG > charter treats the question as open whether "each new gTLD [should] have a > specific charter." This isn't so crazy as some folks think; it's > consistent with RFC 1591, in which Jon Postel referred to EDU, GOV, MIL and > INT as all falling within the category of "generic TLDs.") > > Several people have urged that we'd do better to adopt the IAHC > terminology, under which restricted TLDs and gTLDs are different classes of > beasts. I've got no objection to that in principle, but I don't want to > set up a terminology that leaves us open to the (incorrect) objection that > recommendations concerning chartered TLDs are beyond our authority. My > inclination, at this point, is just to avoid using the term "gTLD" at all, > to the extent we can -- but I'm open to other ideas. > > 5. I've revised the last draft of the principles (guidelines, > whatever) to > address the rest of the points people have made. One of my goals was to > make clear that though we are requiring applicants to think about > enforcement issues, and to discuss them in the application, we are *not* > requiring applicants to adopt any particular enforcement mechanism, and in > particular we are not requiring them to control registrations: An applicant > might simply explain that it will be relying on registrants to choose the > particular TLD only if they feel they belong there. As Jamie points out, > this will depend on the nature of the TLD. > > So here's my most recent attempt. Bouquets and brickbats welcomed. > > Jon > > - - - - > > 1. The initial rollout of six to ten new gTLDs, followed by an evaluation > period, should include both open, unrestricted TLDs and chartered TLDs with > more limited scope. > > 2. An application for a chartered TLD should explain what meaning will be > imputed to the proposed TLD string, and how the applicant contemplates that > the new TLD will be perceived by the relevant population of net users. > > 3. An application for a chartered TLD should explain the mechanism(s) for > charter enforcement. The simplest possible enforcement mechanisms is > registrant self-selection: that is, if .AUTOMOBILES is set up for entities > in some way associated with the automobile world, the applicant might > simply rely on its understanding that other entities will have no interest > in registering in that TLD. Alternatively, an applicant might choose a > more elaborate, registry-driven enforcement mechanism. > > 4. The selection of a TLD string should not confuse net users, and so TLDs > should be clearly differentiated by the string and/or by the marketing and > functionality associated with the string. > > 5. New TLDs are important to meet the needs of an expanding Internet > community. They should serve both commercial and noncommercial goals. > The authorization process for new TLDs should not be used as a means of > protecting existing service providers from competition. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 21:24:10 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda] At 10:55 AM 4/7/00 +0800, tinwee@pobox.org.sg wrote: >This is all the more reason there should be support for >multilingualism to be fair to all languages and peoples of the world. Tin Wee, It is likely that we all agree on the NEED for multi-lingualism. What is far less clear are the MECHANISMS for fulfilling that need, in terms of TLDs. It is one thing to support alternatives. It is another to support a "universal" single solution. It would help to see some examples of things that represent the problem(s) and the solution(s). d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 21:26:40 -0700 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda] On Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 10:55:16AM +0800, tinwee@pobox.org.sg wrote: > > The problem will be the string, for example .union has a complete different > > meaning in France (so in french) than in English !!!!!!! and may be it's an > > insult in some other language...so Do we have the goal to invent a global > > language???????? > > This is all the more reason there should be support for > multilingualism to be fair to all languages and peoples of the world. While they may seem related, to me the term "support for multilingualism" implies something rather different, something usually called "internationalization": a facility in the DNS to support multiple character sets. That issue is orthogonal to the issue before us, which is that TLD names, whether they support international character sets or not, need a broad public review before they are approved, and there should be a process for that review. For the proposed initial rollout, however, there won't have a process. In practice, the only TLD names that have had really broad public review are the IAHC 7, which in fact went through a public comment process, and have been widely exposed for a couple of years now. - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 00:41:06 -0400 From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" Subject: RE: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda] Kent and others The so called IAHC 7 was reviewed by those who were active at that time in the process. Many of today's participants will not recognize IAHC because it was an endeavor who was replaced with other activities and events, which led to ICANN. Let's be careful not to think that the history which some have is shared by all, particularly in light of the fact that the uses of the Internet are changing greatly as more and more applications are delivered via the Internet. Most commercial users of the Internet probably don't recognize the IAHC, but many are beginning to recognize ICANN, due to media coverage. Marilyn - -----Original Message----- From: Kent Crispin [mailto:kent@songbird.com] Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 12:27 AM To: 'wg-c@dnso.org' Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda] On Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 10:55:16AM +0800, tinwee@pobox.org.sg wrote: > > The problem will be the string, for example .union has a complete different > > meaning in France (so in french) than in English !!!!!!! and may be it's an > > insult in some other language...so Do we have the goal to invent a global > > language???????? > > This is all the more reason there should be support for > multilingualism to be fair to all languages and peoples of the world. While they may seem related, to me the term "support for multilingualism" implies something rather different, something usually called "internationalization": a facility in the DNS to support multiple character sets. That issue is orthogonal to the issue before us, which is that TLD names, whether they support international character sets or not, need a broad public review before they are approved, and there should be a process for that review. For the proposed initial rollout, however, there won't have a process. In practice, the only TLD names that have had really broad public review are the IAHC 7, which in fact went through a public comment process, and have been widely exposed for a couple of years now. - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 14:36:04 -0400 From: Kendall Dawson Subject: [wg-c] Guidelines Jon, I'm OK with the use of the term "gTLD" the way it is being used here, and I'd vote to not adopt the IAHC terminology - but I agree with you when you said we should avoid using the term gTLD altogether. Could we just refer to them as a "string" or "suffix" - - it doesn't really matter anymore at this point. I offer a "bouquet" for the latest draft of the guidelines. (I left my brickbat at home ;-) I would make more of an effort to emphasize the caveat: "That applicants are *not* requiring to adopt any particular enforcement mechanism." But, other than this one point -- I agree with the direction that the guidelines are headed. Kendall Thu, 06 Apr 2000 Jonathan Weinberg wrote: - --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> So here's my most recent attempt. Bouquets and brickbats welcomed. >> >> Jon ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #73 *************************