[wg-c] Taxonimies and Chartered TLDs

["Name.Space" <pg@name-space.com>]

Taxonimies and Chartered TLDs:

What are the assets and benefits of each?

Taxonimies, under all best intentions, can
not be an absolute criteria in determining the
content and scope of  the TLD namespace.  While
the desire to pre-rationalize and standardize
the definitions of TLDs from the top down may
be understandable to some, it may unwittingly
contribute to unreasonable constraints on use
and definitions of TLDs in a multi-lingual,
global net-universe.

The following examples are meant to illustrate
this point:

give-a.gift
geben.gift

local.news
noticias.local

In English, the TLD "gift." means "present"
In German, the TLD "gift." means "poison"

Either use is a fair and appropriate application
for a TLD, but according to local culture and
language, have totally different meanings.
(Excuse the possibility that the German grammer
may not be correct, but the point is made).

In the case of "local.news" and "noticias.local"
it would be meaningless to force the English and
Spanish to occupy the same namespace, excluding
one for the other, if all items pertaining literally
to "news" in English, were required to be registered
in the "news." TLD.  The above examples both
rationalize the need for abundant TLDs, and
flexible criteria for registering under them,
to enhance the range of choices for categorical
and expressive use of domain names that would
otherwise be oblitherated by a strict taxonomical
TLD structure, or overly specific chartering.

This is not to say that taxonimies and charters
are not a good ideas in principle, which they may
be, but in determining the scope and content of
the expansion of the global namespace, it is
important to allow for other criteria to balance
the potential limitations that strict enforcement
of taxonimies and charters will inevetibly bring,
however unforseen.

Therefore, I propose that there be a general charter
for ALL TLDs be drafted, to take into account these
issues, and more, which address the concerns of all
involved and ultimately affected by, the introduction
of new TLDs to the global internet.

Such a charter should strive to define a code of
"responsible practice" on the part of NS providers,
be they "registries" "registrars" simply ISPs, or
all the above.  It would be a worthwhile discussion
for this working group to begin to list some of the
items that they believe constitute responsible
practice, under whatever circumstances or any
domain namespace, which we all may agree on as baselines
for general overall domain policy that addresses
all interests.

As an active new gTLD provider and operator offering
continuous, uninterrupted new gLTD services for over three years,
Name.Space has had the chance to evolve policy through
day to day practice, to a high level of satisfaction from
our clients.  It is my hope to share our experiences to
help evolve a workable, inclusive policy for new gTLDs
that serve the interests of the operators, providers, and
consumers.  It is with this that I present this proposal.


----General Points for Discussion:

A TLD is MEANINGLESS BY DEFAULT

A TLD gains its meaning and significance through
use and context.

A TLD BY DEFAULT IS NOT A BRAND
Highly generic terms used as TLDs should be open
to use by all, shared where possible on a voluntary
basis (not every registry would have to carry all
TLDs, but all TLDs would be included in the root,
and must have at least two geographically separate
servers, and conform to the RFCs for proper technical
implementation of DNS to insure stability.  It would
be possible for a number of diverse providers to
operate and manage blocks of TLD zones, and provide
services in any number of zones that they choose to
operate.

Specialized strings that are not highly generic
may be operated exclusively and branding is possible
(i.e. .NOT2B  .4U .XS4ALL ) and should be accepted
into the global root on a non-discriminatory basis
upon proof of operational capability (i.e. ICANN
certification) of the interested registry(ies).

ABUSE POLICY

Definitions of abuse:
(It would be useful for this group to add their
 definitions of the following, with perhaps a
 proposed practice for dealing with abuse):

Cybersquatting:  (define)

Hijacking:  (define)

Reverse-Hijacking:   (define)

Non-use of registered domain:  (define)

Unlawful use of domains:  (define)


OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES FOR TLDs

Should be defined to accomodate the various
models of TLD operations (i.e. CORE, IOdesign,
Name.Space, NSI, et.al.)

AGREEMENTS MADE BETWEEN TLD OPERATORS

Stability depends on persistent infrastructure
and shared responsibility for TLD operations.
Any TLD should have multiple operators to insure
that there is no interruption if any one operator
has a technical or business failure.

Shared TLDs, especially in the instance of small
to medium sized providers, provide for operatonal
stability as outlined above.  Distributed responsibility
can exist in all models, be they profit or non-profit,
and may be set up in accordance with the policies
and practices of interested parties.

ADDITIONAL POINTS:

(please contribute other points of discussion)


Please also see:

http://namespace.org/policy
http://namespace.org/comment
http://vote.global-namespace.org



Paul Garrin
Founder/CEO
Name.Space, Inc.
pg@name-space.com
http://name.space.xs2.net