Re: [wg-c] The scope of gTLDs

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>]

At 10:19 AM 3/16/00 -0500, Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
>(3)  Synthesis:  Neither the registry nor the registrar will act as name 
>cop to prevent anyone from registering a SLD name under a gTLD which has a 
>charter.  Neither will the registry or registrar do

Kevin, I applaud your effort but, alas, the result is lacking.

Discussions about chartered TLDs have been for the purpose of specifying 
restrictive SLD procedures.  That is chartered TLDs are specifically about 
policing.

Existing gTLDs have a stated purpose, but no policing.  Hence, com/net/org 
are examples of exactly what you propose.  mil/int/... are not.

The administrative bases for the two approaches are fundamentally 
different.  open schemes lend themselves well to economies of 
scale.  chartered/policed mechanisms do not.  Open schemes are... well, 
open.  Chartered schemes are, by definition, closed.

And, for reference, an attempt to use only post-registration enforcement is 
a sure way to force dilution of the charter.

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