Re: [wg-c] new TLDs

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> Example: Delegation of .bank. Under Kent's concept (and please correct me if
> I am mis-stating or misunderstanding) .bank is delegated to some legitimate,
> authoritative inernational organization that ICANN thinks is best suited to
> decide what is and is not a bank.

I object to ICANN even saying that "bank" is a TLD category and creating a
even a skeletal charter in which that TLD is to be operated.

These are matters that ought to be absolutely and utterly beyond ICANN and
the DNSO - if there somehow came to be a .bank then whoever operates it
should be free to use it for whatever purpose that operator sees fit with
no limitation whatsoever except those it agrees to between itself and its
customers.

Otherwise ICANN becomes even more of a regulatory body and further
ossifying and retarding the imaginative powers that have created the net.

.bank is a prime example of a notion that has wildely different meaning to
different people depending on the geographic context, the age of the
person, and the person's particular business background.

We all object to how NSI had years of control over .com.  ICANN granted
charters, even skeletal ones, would amount to nothing less than a similar
grant of authority (and money) to the grantee.

New TLDs should be truely generic and allowed to compete head-to-head with
.com/.net/.org.

That competition could take the form of self-defined and self-imposed
limitations on the business that a registry for a TLD might accept.  But
that's the registry's business, not ICANN's.


> If ICANN behaves the way I want it to, it will insure that "emoney, inc."
> has a properly designed registry that won't affect the technical stability
> of the Internet.

How can a registry "affect the technical stability of the Internet"?

A matter is "technical coordination" of the Internet if:

  A wrong decision has an immediate and direct impact on the ability of
  the Internet to deliver its fundamental service, i.e. the end-to-end
  transport of IP packets.

  Otherwise it is a policy matter.

A customer of a badly-operated registry has contractual means to require
that the registry operate up to the level of quality that was contracted
for.  I, for one, am not going to help out slipshod registries and the
customers who were attracted to their resulting cheap rates - those
customers get what they paid for.

If someobody wants to form an association of registries that sets quality
standards for their membership, that's great.  But it is not the duty of
ICANN or the DNSO to do it.


> .. ICANN would become a kind of certification authority for
> cyberspace.

Why are you writing in the future tense?  Past perfect would be more
appropriate.  ;-)

		--karl--