Re: [wg-c] The scope of gTLDs

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

	It's correct, I think, that a TLD that has its use defined so as to
exclude potential registrants has a different "administrative schema" than
one that does not.  The only question that divides us, rather, is one of
terminology.  IAHC suggested that a chartered TLD should not be called a
"gTLD."  The Names Council, OTOH, didn't follow that terminology in setting
up this WG:   In tasking the WG to decide whether "each new gTLD [should]
have a specific charter," it made clear its own understanding that
chartered as well as non-chartered (non-country-code) TLDs are
appropriately called "gTLDs."

Jon



At 12:52 PM 3/15/00 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 03:34 PM 3/15/00 -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>>appropriate in wg-c, b/c this working group is intended for discussion of 
>>*new* gTLDs.  That said, I'm a little surprised that anybody is reviving 
>>the argument that chartered TLDs, in general, are somehow out of the scope 
>>of WG-C, or that the term "gTLD" in the context of our activities does not 
>>include chartered TLDs.  Kent suggested this about six weeks ago.  Here's 
>>my response to him:
>
>The problem is that chartering a TLD -- that is, defining its use so as to 
>exclude potential registrants -- is exactly contrary to existing gTLD 
>practise.
>
>.MIL is not a gTLD.  Neither is .INT.  They are chartered.  They are 
>fundamentally different than com/net/org.
>
>It's fine for the working group charter to raise the question, since 
>resolution of the question has not been documented.
>
>It is NOT fine for the working group or ICANN to confuse two, entirely 
>different administrative schemas.
>
>d/
>
>=-=-=-=-=
>Dave Crocker  <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
>Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
>Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
>675 Spruce Drive,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
>
>
>