[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] new WG on chartered/sponsored TLDs
Rick and all assembly members reamaining,
Good point here Rick, and I agree fully.
Rick H Wesson wrote:
> Kent,
>
> you are proposing almost what wg-c is supposed to do but altering your
> charter a bit. Why create a new working group, your proposal only shoots
> holes in wg-c, why not help work on some of the parrellel issues that you
> have in your charter in wg-c?
>
> your charter ass-u-me-s that charters are a good thing, I believe wg-c has
> the carter to determine if charters should be used at all, why not find
> out first if there is consensus on charters, a great place to ask about
> charters if to poll all the current ICANN approved registrars, after all
> the register constituency whould have to pass muster on any DNSO doument.
>
> I have worked with nearly half of the operational ICANN approved registers
> in consulting on operation issues, I suspect registrars would shoot down
> any type of chartered TLD.
>
> I suspect you are just tired of dealing with the off topic posts in wg-c
> and would prefer to get some work done on a narrowly focused topic.
>
> I believe the wg-c chair posted some fairly focused work items for the
> group, why not start there?
>
> regards,
>
> -rick
>
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> > I am interested in forming a new dnso working group. I have been in
> > touch with Carolyn Chicoine and others on the NC on the topic, and it
> > appears that 1) there will be a formal procedure for proposing a new WG
> > sometime in the not too distant future (but probably after Cairo); and
> > 2) on the other hand, if several NC members can be persuaded to support
> > it, a WG could instituted through informal procedures. Either way is
> > fine by me, and I will pursue both avenues as appropriate.
> >
> > In the meantime, I wonder if there might be some interest in the GA in
> > discussing the matter. Just in case people are interested in such a
> > discussion, here are some random points and issues that occur to me:
> >
> > A. Chartered TLDs
> >
> > 0) There are those who disagree with the notion of chartered TLDs on
> > basically spiritual grounds. That is, they believe that *all* decisions
> > concerning operation of the TLD, and criteria for use, should determined
> > by the registry. In this view, ICANN/DNSO should have no involvement
> > in such decisions.
> >
> > I can appreciate that point of view as a philosophical point, but I am
> > not interested in discussing it in this proposed WG. The purpose of the
> > WG I propose is not to decide whether ICANN should authorize chartered
> > TLDs -- the purpose, instead, is a good-faith exploration of the issues
> > that would be involved if they were authorized
> >
> > 1) Why not do this in WG-C? WG-C has as its charter discussion of new
> > gTLDs, with emphasis on the "g", and I think *that* discussion should
> > remain in WG-C. There is some overlap, but there are many unique
> > issues in the area of charters and sponsors, and WG-C already has a
> > rather full plate. (Some might say "too full". In fact, one of my concerns
> > about DNSO processes in general is that they tend to be very large scale
> > and unfocussed. More narrowly focussed WGs tend to be more likely to
> > accomplish things, in my limited experience.)
> >
> > 2) One of the frequently mentioned criticisms of "charters" is that they
> > would be difficult to enforce. Such critics point to .edu as an example
> > of a failed charter. Others think that enforcement is not anywhere near
> > as difficult as that, and point to .edu as an example of a successful
> > chartered TLD. How rigorous does enforcement have to be? If .1% of
> > the SLDs in a cTLD would fail to meet the criteria in the charter, what
> > are the potential harms?
> >
> > 3) Enforcement of a charter has costs -- what mechanisms can be used to
> > enforce them? How would the costs be allocated.
> >
> > 4) The base enforcement widget in a chartered TLD is a contract a
> > customer signs with the registrar/registry, which includes their
> > agreement to the terms of the charter. What are the legal
> > characteristics of a charter and such a contract that would make them
> > enforcable in a cost-effective way?
> >
> > 5) Presuming that ICANN decides to implement chartered TLDs, an approval
> > process for charters would be required. Presumably the approval process
> > would involve a set of well-defined criteria, as well as possibly some
> > form of required public/dnso review. What are the criteria for good
> > charters? What would be the appropriate public/dnso review process? What
> > would be the legal liability of a public review process?
> >
> >
> > B. Sponsored TLDs
> >
> > The term "sponsored TLD" (or sTLD) may be unfamiliar, since it is
> > relatively recent. A "sponsored TLD" is a TLD that has a "sponsor" --
> > an organization that is given control over policy for the TLD in
> > question. A sponsored TLD may or may not have an associated
> > charter -- the two concepts are somewhat orthogonal. The European
> > Commission is trying to get .eu approved as a quasi-ccTLD; but if there
> > was a mechanism in place for approving sponsored TLDs, the EC might try
> > to get .eu approved with the EC as its sponsor. Note that the
> > "sponsor" and the "registry" are distinct -- the EC could contract with
> > any competent registry to provide registry services.
> >
> > Another potential example of a sponsored TLD is Eric Brunner's .naa TLD
> > -- there the sponsor is a "consortium" of tribal
> > governments/organizations that would assume policy responsibility for
> > the TLD.
> >
> > Yet another example would be a ".movie" TLD, where the sponsoring
> > organization would be a hypothetical international consortium of movie
> > production companies that would take policy responsibility for the tld.
> > This TLD might also have a charter, that it would be restricted to
> > commercial sites publicizing movies -- the purpose of the TLD most
> > emphatically does not need to be non-commercial.
> >
> > And again, there have been discussions of a TLD reserved for technical
> > support of IP Telephony. The sponsors would be an international
> > consortium of telephone companies.
> >
> > Two immediate questions come to mind:
> >
> > 1) what are the characteristics required for an organization to take
> > policy control over a TLD? Stability, of course, would be very high on
> > the list, because sponsorship would be something that would be very
> > difficult to revoke. I've used the code phrase "international
> > consortium" fairly freely -- what standards of openness etc would such
> > consortia require before they could be considered as a sponsor. (Note
> > that ICANN is effectively delegating some hypothetical policy
> > authority, and thus it could be argued that the delegatees should share
> > some of the characteristics of ICANN.)
> >
> > 2) what are boundaries of the policy authority of a sponsor?
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > --
> > Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
> > kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
James Touton
Legal and Policy Advisory Council,
INEGRoup (Stakeholder)
__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html