Re: [wg-c] reposted for Richard S. Campbell

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Wed, Dec 22, 1999  Harold Feld wrote:
> > > A number of people have raised this issue for "chartered" TLDs.
> >
> > Yes, since mid 1996.
> 
> And therefore everything worth being said has been said?
> And therefore there is no more reason for debate?

??Please simmer down, chill out, and reread.  Nothing I said merited 
your emotional tirade.

[...]

> > > For example, if I maintain ".cpa", I will market it as a convenience
> > > for folks looking for (or looking to be identified as) CPAs or
> > > somehow CPA-related.
> >
> > In general there is no reason that the registry would be adding this
> > "value-added service", and in fact, in most cases it would be desirable
> > to separate those functions.
> 
> That is to say *you* don't see any reason a registry will add
> this service.  Others might.

Possibly, but not so far.  If the registry takes upon itself the task of
deciding who gets a TLD, it also takes on the responsibility of being
involved in all disputes over a TLD.  In current objective reality,
registries and registrars are very anxious to avoid getting in the
middle of disputes -- it's a risky, money losing proposition.  Putting
those decisions off into some other authority allows the registry and 
registrars to sidestep most of the disputes.

[...]

> Put another way Kent, if you're so smart on what "the market"
> wants, why ain't you rich?

How do you know that I am not rich?

[...]

> > To examine the .cpa example in more
> > detail:
> >
> > CPA is a us-centric term, and it is American Institute of Certified
> > Public Accountants (AICPA) that grants CPA certification.
> 
> I do not argue with this US centrification.  So what?

Once again, you are overreacting.  Look again at what I wrote: "To
examine the .cpa example in more detail..."

[...]

> >  It is the
> > only entity so entitled, and it there are legal constraints that prevent
> > someone from using the term "CPA" if they are not certified.  Note that
> > the AICPA has a total monopoly on the granting of CPA certificates.
> 
> No problem so far.
> 
> > Therefore, it is the AICPA that needs to run the registry -- it already
> > has all the information on the applicants, and can identify them with
> > certainty.
> 
> This leap of logic makes no sense.  Certainly they'd be a good
> candidate, and would probably want to run it, but this does not
> logically make them the only candidate. [...]

"Logic" and "practicality" are distinct.  I'm sure that the AICPA would
be rather concerned about a registry purporting to identify CPA's. 

You may be confusing "chartered TLD" with "generic TLD".  These are
distinguished by *meaningful* enforcement of the charter.  You stated
that .cpa would be a *chartered* TLD for CPAs -- that is, that having a
SLD in .cpa would convey some kind of real information about the
registrant's status vis a vis the accounting profession.  It would be
very easy for the AICPA to provide such a service -- it would be very
difficult and expensive for the average registry on the street to do so. 

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain