Re: [wg-c-1] Next question: Which gTLDs? How many?

["chris conant" <cconant@compositiongroup.com>]

Javier, 

I would advance that the action for .sex gTLD (or similar) is not an
independent one. The public debate concerning families and pornography does
create responsibility for those of us "in influence" for new gTLDs, whether
admitted or not.

Let me be clear. The charter of WCG1 is not to solve the pornography issue
concerning families. But, since we are to determine which ones and how many,
this can include adding .sex

We may not have to introduce a charter requiring .sex to house only
pornography. It should be available for beauty, film, and other content. Let
the branding, let the community decide!

--

_____________________________
chris conant
creative@compositiongroup.com

www.compositiongroup.com
speaking for the community of families

----------
>From: Javier <javier@aui.es>
>To: wg-c-1@dnso.org
>Subject: [wg-c-1] Next question: Which gTLDs? How many?
>Date: Fri, Jul 16, 1999, 1:16 AM
>

> The answer to the first question seems to be clear:
>
> Yes, there should be new gTLDs.
>
> There where to comments relating to "when" they should be added.
>
> - Not before having a treatment for famous trade-marks.
> - Not before having a Conflict Resolution Policy.
>
> While other discussions continue in parallel, I would like to continue with
> the next questions: Which? How Many?
>
> The results will make sense if we either decide on a model in which the
> Internet Community is the one to choose the new gTLDs or if more than one
> model is proposed.
>
> I personally think that it should be the community to choose. Otherwise all
> new gTLDs would only be oriented to "be sold" and not to serve the
> community. gTLDs such as ".arts" which may add much more richness to the
> name space will not be added, because others may bring in more money.
>
> There is a proposal on the table for 7 new gTLDs. It was a list that was
> reached after long public consultation.
>
> .firm .info .web .arts .rec .nom .shop
>
> The number seven was a middle point reached between the
> technical/business/IP communities. A list short enough to be easy to handle
> and long enough to add a new dimension to the name space.
>
> The merits of having .sex or .xxx were discussed. The reasons for having
> this gTLD seem to be related to classifying the contents of website, and
> enforcing that other gTLDs do not have any sexual contents. As this WG does
> not deal with other existing gTLDs, we could only propose that it be
> created, not that action be taken to move sexual contents out of other
> gTLDs. I don't see the merit of this independent action, and therefore of
> having the .sex gTLD.
>
> Does anybody have other proposals or see things that could be changed on
> this one?
>
> Javier
>
>
>