Re: [wg-c] There is no "consensus"

[Craig Simon <cls@flywheel.com>]

A few bits and pieces of commments (qualified by two hours of sleep).


The problem isn't that "there is no consensus," but that it's mostly
just the same old voices talking past each other.  Significant players
like Roger Cochetti, Glen Kowack and Barbara Dooley are on this list,
but we haven't heard from them (unless I've missed something). I think
we need a better s/l (signal to lurk) ratio.


I don't really agree with Kent's definition of TLD, but I tried to abide
by it in my proposal. In normal nomenclature I don't think a zone needs
to be sanctified by the IANA to qualify technically as a TLD, but I do
understand the need for a distinction between those that are in the
legacy root and those that aren't. So in my proposal I talked about
"zones" rather than TLDs in a way I thought Kent would understand (I
think he did). It was either that or reintroduce the term aTLD (for
alternate). Maybe Kent can suggest a way to refer to these zones. The
point is that they are a reality and I believe we have to recognize
them. That's why my focus is on reunifying the root.

As the posts have been coming in the past few days I realized that, if a
shared system is selected, my proposal handles the .sex dilemma
reasonably well. The TLD has been proposed before. It's on Jon's list
that I cited; it goes in with the others. Just follow the general rule
and nobody has to (or gets to) play censor.

In my proposal I intentionally did not suggest a mixed model of shared
not-for-profit registry and simultaneous proprietary-in-perpetuity. I
agree with Kent, who made as good an argument against the mixed model as
any. It really is a question of fairness. That's why I suggest starting
with .web. All the issues come into play there. Choose a model, then
proceed.

It seems to me that starting with the other CORE 7 minus .web as shared
gTLD is stork-like and not fair (and .arts is claimed anyway, isn't
it?).  If you want to talk about publicly vetted suggestions for new
TLDs, Javier, .web is it. And not because of Chris Ambler's "branding,"
but because it's a generic term that resonates globally.

And this whole business about branded TLDs makes no sense to me. Some of
the DNRC folks have nearly made me a believer on the "SLD
strings-are-not in and of themselves intellectual property" point of
view. I've said before and I'll say again (Admitting it's off topic for
this WG): Holders of famous marks have special problems on with regard
to susceptiblity to infringement through e-commerce which should to be
acknowledged, but that doesn't mean that the Internet should be
structured to grant them irrevocable mindshare over certain strings of
characters. 

Well, Milton, if the disavowal of prior IP right is acceptable at the
SLD level, why isn't the argument good at the TLD level? Why should
someone's trademark on the string of characters .whatever mean that they
and only they can sell domain names ending with .whatever within the
legacy root?


Forgive my grumpiness, someone's car alarm has been going off since 4AM
and the police tell me "there's nothing they can do." I don't have the
patience to try to milk that situation for metaphors or wisdom right
now. 



Craig Simon