Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT

[Raul Echeberria <raul@inia.org.uy>]

>
>PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE	
>
>	The initial rollout should include a range of top level domains, from open
>TLDs to restricted TLDs with more limited scope.

Yes.

My tought is that AT LEAST 50% should be "restricted", "chartered" or "with
more limited scope"


>
>
>PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO
>
>	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 the significance of 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 string 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.



Yes.  

This set of points sound reasonable.

They donīt say that the registry is who apply for the TLD. Because that i
vote yes. 




>
>PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE
>
>	WG-C recommends that the Names Council charter a working group to develop
>policy regarding internationalized domain names using non-ASCII characters.
>

Nes, Yo.

The point is important but it seems that IETF is working on that. I support
Kilnam's position on starting with an informational WG.





Raul Echeberria
raul@inia.org.uy