[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-c] S/K principles
Hello WG C, sorry that I was away last week and could not contribute to the
good discussions on the S/Kprinciples. Much commentary was good though often
went into greater detail than is necessary. The principles as written can
not be directly applied as part of an agreement. They express principle
(hence their title) - and are offered for another group to turn into a form
in which they might apply.
Their objective is the establishment of consumer/net user confidence.
They are intended as "Criteria for assessing a gTLD application from a
registry operator". Thus Brett Fauset's clarification last week is correct.
On multilingualism, this point is to my mind unnecessary. We went to pains
to ensure that the principles did not imply Latin1 or English exclusivity.
They were written to encompass wide variation. Making a new principle that
supports multi lingual names diminishes the application of the rest of them
to multi-lingual names.
I am also concerned about adding too much detail or justification. Better to
state a clean list of principles and add justification later if it is deemed
Guidelines or principles
This is perhaps just semantics but it seems to me that a set of detailed
guidelines may be drawn up from such a set of broad brush principles. Our
task should be the broad-brush principles.
Mixing in the consensus statement on 6-10 is confusing. This is not a
"Criteria for assessing a gTLD application from a registry operator". It is
already in the report anyway and these principles should be for the next
Charter and open
This is not a black and white choice. Even dot com has some defining
characteristics. It is not dot edu, not dot mil and not dot tv. The essence
is competition. Strong competition will be provided by names that add value
to the name space. A dot com2 will provide poor competition to dot com. The
point of the principles is that even a new open gTLD should, as some
commented last week, have a defining characteristic. We tried to capture
this in the original principles by
"3. Differentiation – the selection of a gTLD string should not confuse net
users and so gTLDs should be clearly differentiated by the string and/or by
the marketing and functionality associated with the string."
This is not, as some have suggested, a call for only charter gTLDs. It
intentionally leaves it to a registry to be as chartered or as open as they
please, so long as they are different to all that has gone before them.
Given that the relevant "gone before" is dot com, net and org defining a
new open gTLD is pretty simple.
So, let me offer this revision of the S/K principles based on the 6 April
Weinberg iteration which usefully tightened the phrasing and reduced the
number of principles by consolidating some of the original ideas. I have
added two points regarding next steps (which are not really principles but
seems to be what the WGC thinks is a good idea, as I do).
Criteria for assessing a gTLD application from a registry operator, subject
current technical constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should
be based on all the following principles :
1. Meaning: A TLD should explain what meaning will be
imputed to the proposed TLD string, and how the applicant contemplates that
the new TLD will be perceived by the relevant population of net users.
2. Enforcement: An application for a TLD should explain the mechanism for
charter enforcement where relevant.
3. Differentiation: The selection of a TLD string should not confuse net
users, and so TLDs should be clearly differentiated by the string and/or by
the marketing and
functionality associated with the string.
4. Diversity: New TLDs are important to meet the needs of an expanding
community. They should serve both commercial and non-commercial goals.
5. Honesty: A TLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for
criminal elements who wish to defraud net users.
6. Competition: The authorization process for new TLDs should not be used as
a means of protecting existing service providers from competition.
In addition WG C recommends that the Names Council sets up a new working
group to consider the application of these principles as practical
guidelines. The WG C also recommends that the Names Council should charter a
working group to develop policy regarding internationalized domain names
using non-ASCII characters.
So, Jonathan et al, is this something upon which the majority of the WG can