From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #77 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Monday, April 10 2000 Volume 01 : Number 077 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 09:28:16 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Subject: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven At 12:41 AM 4/7/00 -0400, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote: >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 Marilyn, There are always new participants. Shall we always go back and revise previous work, to make sure that the newest set of new people reviews and approves all that prior work? That, of course, is an excellent way to ensure never making any progress. In any event, Kent made a factual observation that that list is the only one to have received wide-spread review. As a statement of fact, the statement is correct. Or do you know of another list that has received anything close to an equivalent review? While the current community involvement is larger than a couple of years ago, the review the name list received, back then, was nonetheless quite extensive and did result in change. Rather than observing the tautology that this community is constantly changing, do you know of specific problems with that list of seven names? (Other than the frequently cited claim(s) about .web.) Perhaps I have misunderstood your note, and you merely were concerned that the current community needs to be familiar with the list. In that case it would have helped to include a URL to it. Let's remedy that failing now: The original list is cited in the Excecutive Summary of : After extensive public review, there was clear consensus to change .store to .shop. Interestingly, the latter was deemed to have a more "international" flavor, since the word is used in more than one language. Hence, the resulting list of gTLDs is: .firm for businesses, or firms .shop for businesses offering goods to purchase .web for entities emphasizing activities related to the WWW .arts for entities emphasizing cultural and entertainment activities .rec for entities emphasizing recreation/entertainment activities .info for entities providing information services .nom for those wishing individual or personal nomenclature >-----Original Message----- >From: Kent Crispin [mailto:kent@songbird.com] >... >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. =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 12:34:09 -0400 From: Kendall Dawson Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles Jon, I support the proposed rough consensus items and suggested changes that you have added to the current iteration of the S/K principles. Kendall Mon, 10 Apr 2000 Jonathan Weinberg wrote: - ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Now that Philip's back, I'm delighted to turn to the draft he just >> circulated as the basis for our work, and to abandon the version I sent >> round yesterday. I do have a few suggested changes to his draft, which >> I'll append below. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 12:48:07 -0400 From: "Winer, Jonathan" Subject: RE: [wg-c] S/K principles Yes to the W/S/K approach articulated 4/10/2000 12:09pm 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, 10 Apr 2000 09:48:18 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven > There are always new participants. Shall we always go back and revise > previous work, to make sure that the newest set of new people reviews and > approves all that prior work? That, of course, is an excellent way to > ensure never making any progress. That's what was said when the IAHC decided to go back and revise previous work. But hey, why am I complaining? Dave is arguing in favour of Image Online Design's .web registry as a reviewed and approved name. Please, Dave, argue on! - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 10:02:29 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Two Para D&I Summary (PPE) - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10-Apr-2000 Eric Brunner wrote: > I'm not sure which is worse, having Jim Flemming go on about his cure for > everything, Jeff Williams go on about having more supporters than the Dallas > Cowboys, or the ICANN-optional crowd treating ICANN working groups lacking a > test for good-faith participation as ritual urinals. > > Cheers, > Eric It is clear Eric that you have no toleration for those who disagee with you. It is clear that you have no taste or tolerance for open processes. If the rules for the GA list applied here, I'd be asking for the removal of your posting rights for a couple weeks. - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE48gkl8zLmV94Pz+IRArZDAKDS+abB1we85dLxpTB6L+bdOW+P+wCg981t byn79wgtpu766ZB7qeUb65w= =/Y8c - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 10:07:50 -0700 From: "Mark C. Langston" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 09:28:16AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: > > Rather than observing the tautology that this community is constantly > changing, do you know of specific problems with that list of seven > names? (Other than the frequently cited claim(s) about .web.) I can think of one: Weren't the CORE registrars pre-selling registrations in the IAHC 7 up until last year? What is the current status of those pre-registrations? Were the funds returned? Will those registrations go live with the introductions of those gTLDs, thus giving the CORE registrars an unfair advantage over other registrars, and giving those willing to give money to CORE an unfair head start on registrations? My only problem with the IAHC 7 (minus .web) is the above. If some documents could be produced that demonstrate that the CORE registrars revoked those pre-registrations and returned the funds paid, thus creating a level playing field for these 7 TLDs, I would have no problem with them. However, as long as that doubt remains, as long as there's any question that these 7 have been pre-sold, I can't support them, and would actively advise against their introduction in the testbed. - -- Mark C. Langston mark@bitshift.org Systems & Network Admin San Jose, CA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 10:13:25 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven I must ask - was NSI required to revoke all .com/.net/.org registrations when they signed on with ICANN? - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark C. Langston" To: Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 10:07 AM Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven > On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 09:28:16AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: > > > > Rather than observing the tautology that this community is constantly > > changing, do you know of specific problems with that list of seven > > names? (Other than the frequently cited claim(s) about .web.) > > I can think of one: Weren't the CORE registrars pre-selling registrations > in the IAHC 7 up until last year? What is the current status of those > pre-registrations? Were the funds returned? Will those registrations > go live with the introductions of those gTLDs, thus giving the CORE > registrars an unfair advantage over other registrars, and giving those > willing to give money to CORE an unfair head start on registrations? > > My only problem with the IAHC 7 (minus .web) is the above. If some > documents could be produced that demonstrate that the CORE registrars > revoked those pre-registrations and returned the funds paid, thus > creating a level playing field for these 7 TLDs, I would have no > problem with them. > > However, as long as that doubt remains, as long as there's any question > that these 7 have been pre-sold, I can't support them, and would actively > advise against their introduction in the testbed. > > > -- > Mark C. Langston > mark@bitshift.org > Systems & Network Admin > San Jose, CA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 13:29:16 -0400 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven Mark, Leaving aside the issue of price, you appear to be concerned over the size of the registry operator's initial registrant db, correct? I expect that the NAA registry will have ~1K entries on Day Zero, and expect that some similar size "preloading" will obtain for any gTLD arising out of community involvement. Is your position predicated upon preloads being bad generally, or only for a particular set of gTLDs? If so, which? Cheers, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 10:46:51 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven At 10:07 AM 4/10/00 -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote: >On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 09:28:16AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: > > Rather than observing the tautology that this community is constantly > > changing, do you know of specific problems with that list of seven > > names? (Other than the frequently cited claim(s) about .web.) > >I can think of one: Weren't the CORE registrars pre-selling registrations >in the IAHC 7 up until last year? What is the current status of those Some CORE registrars chose to put customers into their own, private queues. That activity was ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT OF CORE, itself, and those queues HAVE NO STATUS OR POSITION, other than with those individual CORE registrars. Next question? d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 10:52:21 -0700 From: "Mark C. Langston" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven PROPOSAL: I propose that we allow no pre-sold TLDs to become part of the testbed, and I further propose that we re-evaluate this position once the testbed period has ended. On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 10:13:25AM -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote: > I must ask - was NSI required to revoke all .com/.net/.org registrations > when they signed on with ICANN? No, but .com/.net/.org were already part of the roots. the IAHC 7 are not. Thus, while .com/.net/.org may have only been sold by one registrar prior to the introduction of the SRS, there was never any doubt about their legitimacy or usefulness on a worldwide scale, to the end-user. The IAHC 7, on the other hand, were of dubious value, were not in the roots, and were only reachable by those willing to configure their systems to handle multiple independent roots. They should not have been pre-sold as though they were going to be added to the roots any day now. However, if I recall the ad copy, that's how CORE was pushing them. Going beyond legitimacy issues, there is the larger issue of fairness: Why is there such a clamoring for new gTLDs? Because there is a perceived and/or actual shortage of short, memorable, pronouncable names within the namespace of the existing, sanctioned roots. Introducing new gTLDs where the namespace has been presold does not solve this problem. It simply introduces new gTLDs in which all the "good names" have been taken before the public as a whole has a chance to register anything in them. I won't pretend to define what a "good name" is. Everyone has their own definition. Some want short, memorable names. Others want names already taken in other TLDs. Yet others define "good" as, "the name I registered in a non-legitimate root years ago, and that I should be allowed to keep if the TLD is added to the roots." Anyone who registered such a name knew, or should have known, the risk they were taking by giving money to a registrar selling SLDs under TLDs not in the sanctioned roots. There should have been -- indeed, could not have been -- any guarantee that those registrations would carry over if the TLD was ever added to the roots. If people want to keep operating TLDs outside the authoritative roots, fine. if people want to sell SLDs within them, fine. If people are willing to give these people money for those SLDs, again fine. But don't presume that you're doing a public good by arguing to add a presold gTLD to the root to alleviate the current shortage of names within namespace. It's painfully obvious when you're thinking with your wallet. - -- Mark C. Langston mark@bitshift.org Systems & Network Admin San Jose, CA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 10:54:51 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven Really? Then why do they say on their web sites that they'll be entered into the CORE system in a round-robin fashion? Why do they still maintain, on some sites, that CORE will have the 7 names in the root soon (some say as soon as September of 1999 (sic)). For that matter, what happened to the CORE SRS? Was the system scrapped in favour of the one CORE is running now to be an ICANN registrar? Was all of the data from the test that CORE ran just dumped? Finally, Dave, what is your authority here with respect to CORE? How do you know this? I look forward to your answers. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Crocker" To: "Mark C. Langston" Cc: Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 10:46 AM Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven > At 10:07 AM 4/10/00 -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote: > >On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 09:28:16AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: > > > Rather than observing the tautology that this community is constantly > > > changing, do you know of specific problems with that list of seven > > > names? (Other than the frequently cited claim(s) about .web.) > > > >I can think of one: Weren't the CORE registrars pre-selling registrations > >in the IAHC 7 up until last year? What is the current status of those > > Some CORE registrars chose to put customers into their own, private queues. > > That activity was ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT OF CORE, itself, and those queues > HAVE NO STATUS OR POSITION, other than with those individual CORE registrars. > > Next question? > > d/ > > =-=-=-=-= > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg Consulting > Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 > 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 11:10:29 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven At 10:52 AM 4/10/00 -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote: > I propose that we allow no pre-sold TLDs to become part of the >testbed, and I further propose that we re-evaluate this position once >the testbed period has ended. Are you then, also, going to propose regulating the ways that registrars maintain their financial records? The temperature of their offices? One of the more difficult aspects to this activity is being very careful and consistent about what is NECESSARY for ICANN and registries to deal with, and what is not. Within the limits of concern about such things as mis-representations of the registry, the business dealings between a registrar and its customers are not reasonably the concern of the registry or ICANN. >The IAHC 7, on the other hand, were of dubious value, were not in the >roots, and were only reachable by those willing to configure their >systems to handle multiple independent roots. They should not have >been pre-sold as though they were going to be added to the roots >any day now. However, if I recall the ad copy, that's how CORE was >pushing them. Where and when did "CORE" push them, as opposed to some registrars that belonged to CORE? Please be careful to distinguish between activities of the association and independent actions by association members. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 11:37:00 -0700 From: "Mark C. Langston" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 11:10:29AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: > At 10:52 AM 4/10/00 -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote: > > I propose that we allow no pre-sold TLDs to become part of the > >testbed, and I further propose that we re-evaluate this position once > >the testbed period has ended. > > Are you then, also, going to propose regulating the ways that registrars > maintain their financial records? The temperature of their offices? > > One of the more difficult aspects to this activity is being very careful > and consistent about what is NECESSARY for ICANN and registries to deal > with, and what is not. > > Within the limits of concern about such things as mis-representations of > the registry, the business dealings between a registrar and its customers > are not reasonably the concern of the registry or ICANN. > > I'm not saying this is an easy proposal to enforce. But I stand by the assertion that introducing pre-sold TLDs to the authoritative roots under the pretense of expanding namespace is disingenuous because it will not introduce additional namespace, it will simply introduce already occupied namespace. > >The IAHC 7, on the other hand, were of dubious value, were not in the > >roots, and were only reachable by those willing to configure their > >systems to handle multiple independent roots. They should not have > >been pre-sold as though they were going to be added to the roots > >any day now. However, if I recall the ad copy, that's how CORE was > >pushing them. > > Where and when did "CORE" push them, as opposed to some registrars that > belonged to CORE? > > Please be careful to distinguish between activities of the association and > independent actions by association members. Sorry. Yes, this was pushed by the CORE registrars as individual entities and not by CORE itself. Sorry for any confusion. - -- Mark C. Langston mark@bitshift.org Systems & Network Admin San Jose, CA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 13:51:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Alex Kamantauskas Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, Mark C. Langston wrote: > PROPOSAL: > > I propose that we allow no pre-sold TLDs to become part of the > testbed, and I further propose that we re-evaluate this position once > the testbed period has ended. > I agree that we should not allow any pre-sold TLD's as part of the testbed. - -- Alex Kamantauskas alexk@tugger.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 12:32:31 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven > > Please be careful to distinguish between activities of the association and > > independent actions by association members. > > Sorry. Yes, this was pushed by the CORE registrars as individual entities > and not by CORE itself. Sorry for any confusion. Don't be so sorry. I think, in the next couple of months, you'll be very surprised at the relationship between CORE and its members. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 15:31:14 -0400 From: "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." Subject: RE: [wg-c] S/K principles I do not like Principle #1 as Philip has drafted it. It seems inconsistent with open TLDs. Why should there be a principle designating that TLD strings have meaning? This seems superfluous on the one hand, and on the other could be used against the continued operation of a registry that has no more precise meaning than *.com currently has. In other words, we should be careful that our "principles" do not inadvertently sustain the *.com TLD in its privileged position. The other points seem fine. Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. www.cyberspaces.org rod@cyberspaces.org >The > point of the principles is that even a new open gTLD should, as some > commented last week, have a defining characteristic. We tried to capture > this in the original principles by > "3. Differentiation – the selection of a gTLD string should not > confuse net > users and so gTLDs should be clearly differentiated by the string > and/or by > the marketing and functionality associated with the string." > > This is not, as some have suggested, a call for only charter gTLDs. It > intentionally leaves it to a registry to be as chartered or as > open as they > please, so long as they are different to all that has gone before them. > Given that the relevant "gone before" is dot com, net and org defining a > new open gTLD is pretty simple. > > So, let me offer this revision of the S/K principles based on the 6 April > Weinberg iteration which usefully tightened the phrasing and reduced the > number of principles by consolidating some of the original ideas. I have > added two points regarding next steps (which are not really principles but > seems to be what the WGC thinks is a good idea, as I do). > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---------- > - > Criteria for assessing a gTLD application from a registry > operator, subject > to > current technical constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should > be based on all the following principles : > > 1. Meaning: A 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. > > 2. Enforcement: An application for a TLD should explain the mechanism for > charter enforcement where relevant. > > 3. Differentiation: 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. > > 4. Diversity: New TLDs are important to meet the needs of an expanding > Internet > community. They should serve both commercial and non-commercial goals. > > 5. Honesty: A TLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for > malicious or > criminal elements who wish to defraud net users. > > 6. Competition: The authorization process for new TLDs should not > be used as > a means of protecting existing service providers from competition. > > Next steps > In addition WG C recommends that the Names Council sets up a new working > group to consider the application of these principles as practical > guidelines. The WG C also recommends that the Names Council > should charter a > working group to develop policy regarding internationalized domain names > using non-ASCII characters. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > So, Jonathan et al, is this something upon which the majority of > the WG can > agree? > > Philip > > > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 12:50:32 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs Let's call it like it is - there are two pre-sold TLDs available right now. One is IOD's .web, and the other is CORE's 7. At this time, IOD is suing CORE over .web, and CORE's motion to dismiss has been denied, so I expect it will be resolved soon. Presume that CORE selects one of the remaining 6 for the testbed, you have 2 TLDs that have been pre-sold. Why were they pre-sold? IOD claims that IANA gave permission to go live and accept fees pending resolution of the TLD addition process. CORE claims that IANA gave permission to go live and accept fees pending resolution of the gTLD-MoU process. In both cases, IOD and CORE have been operating under those claims. Whether they are true or not is immaterial to the fact that registrations are being taken. So what are the problems with this proposal? First, it's outside the scope of this working group, just like mandating business model is outside the scope. Indeed, we can't even decide if it's in the scope of this working group to decide the TLD names, or the process for doing so. Second, Just as there are many who would excuse certain positions and advantages that NSI has as an "accident of history," so is the condition of the pre-sold TLDs. The two examples of pre-sold TLDs are arguably the two strongest (and longest-standing) claims for pioneer registries. Regardless of the position on a pioneer preference, it is clear that the experience that the two registries would bring to the testbed is both considerable and unique. To exclude them based on this accident of history is both unfair and unwise. Finally, to put it in perspective, the number of pre-sold names is a fraction of a fraction of the namespace. It is not, by any means whatsoever, a case of introducing a TLD that is already full. It's not even close. It would seem that there is no objective reason to consider this proposal. Now, a compromise might be in order. For example, if it would help the process, perhaps IOD could offer to suspend new registrations in .web until it is added to the roots, now that this issue has been brought up. I'm open to discussion on this possibility. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 15:57:41 -0400 From: "Winer, Jonathan" Subject: RE: [wg-c] S/K principles I believe one purpose of suggesting a meaning, even for an open TLD, is to create a context for the term, which may be useful for many (not needfully or necessarily all) users. - -----Original Message----- From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [mailto:rod@cyberspaces.org] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 3:31 PM To: Philip Sheppard; wg-c@dnso.org; Jonathan Weinberg Subject: RE: [wg-c] S/K principles I do not like Principle #1 as Philip has drafted it. It seems inconsistent with open TLDs. Why should there be a principle designating that TLD strings have meaning? This seems superfluous on the one hand, and on the other could be used against the continued operation of a registry that has no more precise meaning than *.com currently has. In other words, we should be careful that our "principles" do not inadvertently sustain the *.com TLD in its privileged position. The other points seem fine. Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. www.cyberspaces.org rod@cyberspaces.org >The > point of the principles is that even a new open gTLD should, as some > commented last week, have a defining characteristic. We tried to capture > this in the original principles by > "3. Differentiation - the selection of a gTLD string should not > confuse net > users and so gTLDs should be clearly differentiated by the string > and/or by > the marketing and functionality associated with the string." > > This is not, as some have suggested, a call for only charter gTLDs. It > intentionally leaves it to a registry to be as chartered or as > open as they > please, so long as they are different to all that has gone before them. > Given that the relevant "gone before" is dot com, net and org defining a > new open gTLD is pretty simple. > > So, let me offer this revision of the S/K principles based on the 6 April > Weinberg iteration which usefully tightened the phrasing and reduced the > number of principles by consolidating some of the original ideas. I have > added two points regarding next steps (which are not really principles but > seems to be what the WGC thinks is a good idea, as I do). > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---------- > - > Criteria for assessing a gTLD application from a registry > operator, subject > to > current technical constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should > be based on all the following principles : > > 1. Meaning: A 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. > > 2. Enforcement: An application for a TLD should explain the mechanism for > charter enforcement where relevant. > > 3. Differentiation: 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. > > 4. Diversity: New TLDs are important to meet the needs of an expanding > Internet > community. They should serve both commercial and non-commercial goals. > > 5. Honesty: A TLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for > malicious or > criminal elements who wish to defraud net users. > > 6. Competition: The authorization process for new TLDs should not > be used as > a means of protecting existing service providers from competition. > > Next steps > In addition WG C recommends that the Names Council sets up a new working > group to consider the application of these principles as practical > guidelines. The WG C also recommends that the Names Council > should charter a > working group to develop policy regarding internationalized domain names > using non-ASCII characters. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > So, Jonathan et al, is this something upon which the majority of > the WG can > agree? > > Philip > > > > > > > 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, 10 Apr 2000 13:16:24 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven At 11:37 AM 4/10/00 -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote: >I'm not saying this is an easy proposal to enforce. But I stand by >the assertion that introducing pre-sold TLDs to the authoritative roots >under the pretense of expanding namespace is disingenuous because it Mark, perhaps my language was not clear enough: "under the pretense..." presumes that there is a recognition of pre-sales by ICANN, CORE, or whoever (other than the registrars.) My point was that the action is invisible to ICANN and the registries. It should remain that way. Registrars present registries with names to register. How a registrar gets a name (and, for that matter, when) is not the concern of the registry, as long as the registrar has not misrepresented the registry. Let me be further clear that the instant you start getting into the bed of each registrar at that level, you have a massively regulated registrar business. There is a debate about the amount of control/constraint needed for registries, but I was under the impression that we had massive consensus that registrars were to do business in the manner they deemed appropriate. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 13:36:18 -0700 From: "Mark C. Langston" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 01:16:24PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: > At 11:37 AM 4/10/00 -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote: > >I'm not saying this is an easy proposal to enforce. But I stand by > >the assertion that introducing pre-sold TLDs to the authoritative roots > >under the pretense of expanding namespace is disingenuous because it > > Mark, perhaps my language was not clear enough: "under the pretense..." > presumes that there is a recognition of pre-sales by ICANN, CORE, or > whoever (other than the registrars.) > > My point was that the action is invisible to ICANN and the registries. It > should remain that way. > > Registrars present registries with names to register. How a registrar gets > a name (and, for that matter, when) is not the concern of the registry, as > long as the registrar has not misrepresented the registry. > > Let me be further clear that the instant you start getting into the bed of > each registrar at that level, you have a massively regulated registrar > business. > > There is a debate about the amount of control/constraint needed for > registries, but I was under the impression that we had massive consensus > that registrars were to do business in the manner they deemed appropriate. Sorry, perhaps my language wasn't clear either: My problem is not with the registrars. I am opposed to ICANN entering into an agreement with any registry (not -rar), at least during the testbed, that contains any existing registrations in the TLD being courted. I.e., any registry participating in the testbed and hosting .FOO should be completely devoid of existing registrations in .FOO at the inception of the testbed period. No pre-existing .FOO registrations will be grandfathered. Otherwise, we're just adding another occupied block to the namespace. If there's any doubt, perhaps the registries in question would like to speak up with statistics about how many unique 1-letter, 2-letter, 3-letter, and 4-letter SLDs remain available for registration within each? Besides the point of fairness I'm trying to make, there's another very sensible reason for not allowing any registry with pre-existing, pre-sold registrations into the testbed: Those registries bring with them an enormous amount of potential infringement in their SLDs, which have not been held in check by any kind of process, be it the UDRP or any other oversight. Just flooding namespace with those pre-existing registrations that have sat in the shadows all this time might very well anger the IP interests. But I'm sure an IP interest or two will speak up on this matter. Finally, would someone please produce the documents in which IANA blessed these various registries with the right to start registering domains within these TLDs? I've asked a few times here, I believe, and haven't yet seen them. - -- Mark C. Langston mark@bitshift.org Systems & Network Admin San Jose, CA ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #77 *************************