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

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, William X. Walsh wrote:
> >     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.  

    Well, they are exceptions, and the fact that they are "limited" is
the point, and why these TLDs mean something (unlike .org or .net, which
mean nothing).

> 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 guess the US government thinks it should benefit from its early
investments in the Internet.  But in any case, neither of us will change
this.
    
> 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.

    I don't suggest there aren't disputes or even controversey over who
can get a particularl TLD, like .edu.  But the fact that it is
restrictive is a good thing, IMO.  What if everyone could get .edu?
What would it mean?  What would be the point?

    Rather than giving everyone the .edu, it would make more sense to
create more TLDs.

> .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.

    I find the .int and .gov TLDs useful.  It is some assurance that a
group has some official status.  I don't want everyone to get either
TLD.       

> >      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 can see from your web page, you want to provide domain
registration services.  So it is not surprising that you can see
ourheavenly.union, Ihatethe.union, and lots of other .union domains
that might sell in the market.

    I could care less about that.  The fact that people might want to
use .edu, .gov, .int, .union and other non commerical domains, for lots
of interesting and cool domain names, isn't as important to me as the
value of the TLD as a signal.  A TLD can't be all things to all people.
If the TLD is a first come first serve thing, it will be different than
if its use is restricted.  There is room for both models.  

    I support the creation of thousands of TLDs, and lots of different
management models, including the kinds that you like, as well as
these other kinds.  


> >> 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. 

    Well, I don't see that what we are discussing here is strickly
technical.  

> 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.

     I don't think the future will be up to ICANN alone.  If ICANN has
the power to place conditions on domains, as it is doing now with
regard to anonymity and trademarks, it will be approached by governments
to do more.

    The suggestion was made in Strasbough, last week, that ICANN be
required to put provisions into its contracts that it would permit
courts in any country to order a domain be removed.  Apparently NSI has
been doing this for a while already, but the new competitive registry
system makes this less of a "one stop shopping" issue for court orders.  

    Jamie


James Love, Consumer Project on Technology    
P.O. Box 19367        | http://www.cptech.org 
Washington, DC 20036  | love@cptech.org       
Voice 202/387-8030    | Fax 202/234-5176