[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-c] S/K principles
Now that Philip's back, I'm delighted to turn to the draft he just
circulated as the basis for our work, and to abandon the version I sent
round yesterday. I do have a few suggested changes to his draft, which
I'll append below. Again, we're operating under a painfully tight
timeframe: If we're to have a week for a formal consensus call before
giving the result to the NC on 4/17, in time for their discussion and vote
on 4/18, the text needs to become final *tonight* (well, tonight US time,
in any event).
My specific thoughts: To folks within this WG, it's obvious that domain
names need not have their primary semantic meaning in English. I do think
it's useful, though, to say that explicitly, especially for the benefit of
non-English speakers for whom this issue is often very important. In the
draft below, I've tried to do so gracefully (and in a way responsive to
Dave's concerns).
One of the things that came through to me quite strongly from last week's
discussion (as well as last month's straw poll) was that WG members do
support, and desire, an explicit statement that the initial rollout should
include both open and restricted TLDs. Maybe the best thing to do is to
break this point out into a *separate* rough consensus point, and vote on
it separately, rather than including it in the S/K principles.
I've added the words "and desired" to the enforcement principle to convey
the sentiment people expressed last week that a registry may choose not to
adopt an affirmative enforcement mechanism.
I don't think we should recommend that the NC set up a new working group
to operationalize these principles, b/c I don't see how the schedule
supports it. The ICANN Board has asked the NC to report its views by April
20 so that ICANN staff can develop implementation documents for new TLDs,
and subject them to public comment, in time for the Board to take action in
Yokohama. That suggests to me that the work of operationalizing these
principles, at least for the initial rollout, is going to be done by ICANN
staff, not a DNSO WG.
Jon
- - - - - - - - - -
Proposed rough consensus item #1:
The initial rollout should include a range of top level domains, from open
TLDs to restricted TLDs with more limited scope.
Proposed rough consensus item #2:
Criteria for assessing a gTLD application, subject to current technical
constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should be based on all of
the following principles :
1. Meaning: An application for 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. The
application may contemplate that the proposed TLD strong will have its
primary semantic meaning in a language other than English.
2. Enforcement: An application for a TLD should explain the mechanism for
charter enforcement where relevant and desired.
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
Internet community. They should serve both commercial and non-commercial
goals.
5. Honesty: A TLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for
malicious or 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.
Proposed rough consensus item #3:
WG-C recommends that the Names Council charter a working group to develop
policy regarding internationalized domain names using non-ASCII characters.
At 05:13 PM 4/10/00 +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote:
>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.
>
>Languages
>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.
>
>Justification
>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
>necessary.
>
>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.
>
>Initial roll-out
>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
>6-1000!
>
>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
>to
>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
>Internet
>community. They should serve both commercial and non-commercial goals.
>
>5. Honesty: A TLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for
>malicious or
>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.
>
>Next steps
>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
>agree?
>
>Philip
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>