Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 21-Mar-2000 James Love wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, William X. Walsh wrote:
>> I see this as wrought with problems.  A domain registry should not
>> be a content police force.  It is a registration service, and that
>> alone.
> 
>     That is one view of what a TLD should be, but it is not a view that
> reflects current practice, and it is not our view.

Most certainly it reflects current practice.

 
> 
>> I would want to see any strict charters to have a lot of public
>> input, because I see the rights of domain holders to use their
>> domains as being in jeopardy by these attempts to turn registries
>> into content police.
> 
>     The system would depend upon the TLD and its charter.  We have .gov,
> .edu, .mil and .int.   Each has its own system, and each seems to work
> ok.  

Those are limited exceptions.  And there is a lot of criticism of the way .edu
and .int are run, and there are a lot of people who do not think .gov or .mil
should exist.  I for one think that all new domains under those TLDs should be
instead registered under gov.us and mil.us.  I understand that gov.us is being
administered along side .gov at the moment.  I think it would be more
appropriate for them to begin enforcing a change to gov.us by not registering
any new .gov domains.  Same with .mil.

As for .edu, there is a lot of international criticism about how restrictive it
is.   There are a ever growing number of k-12 schools who feel they are being
unfairly treated under that policy, and being pushed instead to use a rather
lengthy fourth level domain.  To imply that .edu works and does so without
controversy is simply wrong.

.INT has been wrought with problems.  I for one would love to see an
explanation of how TPC.INT qualifies under the .INT "charter" and why many
other more worthy projects have been denied.  I am not alone in those concerns.
 
>      Labor unions are meeting soon to discuss the .union TLD, including
> issues of how such a TLD might be managed.  I don't know what they will
> come up with, but if they choose to vest the management of the TLD in a
> big international labor union federation of some type, it would be fine
> with me.  

Fine with you, but surely you can see how .union can be used to mean many
different things.    Odd who those multiple meaning words do that, isn't it?
 
>> 
>> I know the MPAA and RIAA want domain names to be revoked when there are
>> complaints about content, but surely we all see that as being extreme.
> 
>     There are lots of groups that will be seeking to use ICANN to
> enforce a variety of policies.  This was raised in Strasbough last
> thursday in a meeting of the European Parliament.  I was there.  This
> has nothing to do with TLDs.  It has to do with ICANN's power and
> control over domain registrations.  The US government has already asked
> ICANN to eliminate the "mickey mouse" type registrations and to find the
> true name of the domain owners, and also to address trademark issues. I
> think this is only the beginning of ICANN as an enforcement tool for
> governments.  This is an observation, not an endorsement.  

I don' t know what you are referring to here, but ICANN's sole function is
technical coordination.  Unfortunately, it is the forces of the Trademark/IP
interests who have pushed ICANN into a policy administration role in return for
them not outright opposing ICANN and it's perceived authority.  ICANN sold out
on that point.  I would not encourage it to continue exceeding it's function
just because it did it once.  

- --
William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
http://userfriendly.com/
Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/

iD8DBQE41tzq8zLmV94Pz+IRAntmAJ4hRPCczXJUWrICL6QWoHHl0G2sXACg7A8G
lofVoSw2itURrgG/HrF3PWw=
=r2ZU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----