[wg-c] re: S/K principles

[Kendall Dawson <kendall@motif1.obs-us.com>]

Mon, 03 Apr 2000 Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------
 > Is this a good model for the name space, or a bad one?  *Should* most 
new TLDs
 > have such mechanisms?  There are some who argue that the best, bottom-up,
 > user-driven structure for the name space will be created by allowing users
 > to register where they want, and thus to define the name space in the ways
 > most meaningful to them.  There are others who argue that that such an
 > approach would interfere with attempts to add value through the structure
 > of the name space, and would allow some registrants to destroy the utility
 > of the name space for others.

I don't know if we should try to map the S/K principles to the *entire* 
namespace.  For the most part the S/K principles are just 
honest-to-goodness common-sense (something we lack in many areas). I would 
say that "YES" we should have something like this for chartered TLDs. But, 
for unchartered and open TLDs, I don't see where these would principles 
would apply.

Kevin brings up some valid points in his post. Most notable is the fact 
that com/net/org do not have this problem because they made no such 
pretense regarding the meaning of a name. However, IMHO, this was one of 
the greatest mistakes made in the current system. The lines have blurred to 
such a point now that it is almost laughable when someone has a ".org" 
address today. They could be a valid organization... but then again they 
could be selling hard-core porn -- it's anyone's guess.

I feel that we should have both types of models. Certain TLDs (ie - .web, 
.info or .space) could be open and "unchartered" where anyone can register 
whatever name they want. There would be no restrictions on the type of name 
or meaning allowed here.  But, other TLDs (ie - .bank, .firm, .store) 
should be "chartered" from the start. Anyone who qualifies or meets the 
requirements stated in the charter should be allowed to apply for a name 
under that TLD.

If somebody lies or forges their credentials to obtain a name under the TLD 
and is found to be misrepresenting themselves - the ICANN UDRP should be 
used to immediately stop the abuse. (something akin to NSI pulling the plug 
on someone's domain until the dispute is resolved) The registry itself 
should not be held directly responsible for the enforcement of the 
namespace or as Kevin points out they would be "sued into oblivion for 
failure to enforce the principles". If this is going to be the case, then 
gTLDS will last all of about 2 months before the whole system gets mired in 
litigation and disputes.

By having chartered TLDs we will add value to the namespace - and provide 
user confidence. A prime example of this in action is ".gov".... you know 
for a fact that if you type an address under this TLD you will get a US 
Government site. As web use starts to switch from PC based access to 
appliance or mobile access we will need a strong address / location 
mechanism in place. I think the only way to insure this is to force buyers 
of these SLDs to adhere to the conditions set forth in the charter - so 
that if I type boston.map into my PDA I get a map of Boston - not a steamy 
adult entertainment site.

So, is there a reason that we can't have both models? Both chartered and 
unchartered TLDs ?


Kendall