[wg-c] Chartered TLDs and gTLDs

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

                   Chartered TLDs and gTLDs


The charter of WG-C is to consider the addition of new gTLDs. 
Javier, in a message a week ago, said that we "need to define 1) who
decides on gTLD names; and 2) the methodology for making the
decision.  I would like to proceed on that problem.  

Javier proposed a plan involving voting.  Here I propose a somewhat
different approach.  We share in common the notion that selection of
TLD names and policies is a completely independent activity from
selection of registries. 

This different approach is motivated by another factor -- a desire to
handle all new TLDs in a more uniform fashion.  In particular, there
has been great interest in the past in the idea of what might be
called "chartered TLDs" (or "cTLDs", not to be confused with
"ccTLDs"), and I think cTLDs have a close relation to gTLDs.  I will
spend the next couple of paragraphs describing cTLDs. 

               Digression on Chartered TLDs

The essential characteristic of a chartered TLD is that there is a
defined and explicit policy, including possibly enforcement
provisions, for registrations in that TLD.  This policy has been
called the "charter" for the TLD. 

Several cTLDs, or near cTLDs, already exist -- .GOV and .MIL could be
classified this way, as US Government controlled TLDs restricted to
USG entities and US Military entities, respectively.  .EDU could be
termed a cTLD with a weakly enforced charter.  .INT also could 
qualify as a cTLD.  .ARPA, as a TLD tied to the infrastructure of 
DNS itself, could be described as a cTLD.

It would certainly be possible for several TLDs to share the same 
charter.  Indeed, the gTLDs .COM, .NET, and .ORG could all be 
classified as cTLDs with a common charter, the "gTLD" charter: 
a charter that defines a policy of open registration.

In fact many of the current TLDs fit this model fairly well, and
indeed, the idea of a "charter" can be viewed as just a formalism for
describing the policy that attends a TLD.

Here are some samples of new cTLDs that might be considered:

.ham -- intended for individuals who have a valid amateur radio
license.  Possession of such a license required for registration

.icann -- non-commercial TLD, registrants must be current members of 
ICANN.

.law -- intended for entities who have a direct connection with the
legal profession.  A license to practice law required for registration.

.med -- intended for entities with a direct connection with the
medical profession.  A medical license required.

.museum -- similar to .edu, except intended for museums (suggested by
Cary Karp).  Discussed below.

.naa -- Eric Brunners "North American Aboriginal" TLD.  

.phd -- intended for individuals who have an advanced degree.  
Diploma required for registration.

.priv -- Michael Froomkin's "privacy enhanced" TLD

.nom -- registered SLDs must be a word contained in the legal name 
of the registrant, who must be an individual.  Proof of identity 
must be demonstrated to register.

These examples vary in the clarity of the charter, in how easy it
would be to enforce the charter (*), and in a number of other ways. 

The charter need not specify all details of the policy -- some of
that can be farmed out to an appropriate organization.  For example,
the International Council of Museums (www.icom.org) might be
specified as the authority that determines whether an entity gets an
entry in .museum.  The ICOM would have to pledge fair, transparent,
open, unbiased processes for making those determinations, and would
presumably sign an MoU with ICANN stating so.  Some international
medical association might serve the same purpose for a .med TLD, and
so on. 

It is important to note that the ICOM, in the above example, would
not be the registry for .museum, nor would it be a registrar -- the
registry could be run by any qualified registry operator, as a shared
registry with many registrars.  The role of ICOM is to strictly just
to adjudicate registrations. 

                  Relationship to gTLDs

Consider for a moment the proposed IAHC TLDs: .nom, .arts, .shop,
.web, .firm, .rec, and .info.  As noted above, .nom could easily be a
chartered TLD.  .firm could require a business license of some sort
for membership.  However, arts, shop, web, rec, and info don't appear
to have any clear criteria for registration that is tightly coupled
to the meaning of the name.  I must qualify the preceding statement
with loads of caveats -- the examples are US-centric, and reflect my
limited experience.  But the general point is that some names have a
more general character than others; some names are better suited for
"gTLD-hood" than others. 

The point is also important if you reverse it -- some names give a 
much clearer indication of potential for a charter than others.

If the charters were suitably enforced, it has been argued that SLDs
in cTLDs would in many cases be very resistant to TM infringement --
mcdonald.nom really only could be held by someone named McDonald, for
example.  Thus, chartered TLDs are a way to increase choices in the 
name space with potentially much less impact from a TM perspective.  

At a more abstract level, chartered TLDs have a significant advantage
over gTLDs, in that they actually carve up the name space into
distinct buckets.  gTLDs, on the other hand, are all pretty much the
same.  Moreover, like trademarks, chartered TLDs have potentially
stronger branding power.  There would be a great deal more snob
appeal in a strongly chartered .PhD TLD than there would be if it was
just a gTLD.  [A privately controlled .PhD TLD would not have the 
cachet of an ICANN approved charter.]

However, gTLDs and cTLDs occupy exactly the same name space -- any 
name used for a gTLD can't be used for a cTLD.  

                     Approval Process

Consequently, I conclude that the approval process for putting new
gTLDs in the root zone cannot be separated from the approval process
for adding TLDs of any kind to the root zone.  That process must 
include approval of the name, and the charter, for the TLD.  This is 
also true for a gTLD, except that the charter would be a standard 
"gTLD charter", with perhaps some additional prose motivating the 
name. 

I further believe that the best way to proceed on getting new gTLDs 
is for proponents of particular gTLDs to propose DNSO working groups 
to develop the charters and rationalize the names.  For example, I 
think that the supporters of CORE should propose a WG for the CORE 
TLDs, that the NC should approve that WG, and that the WG should 
develop a document chartering the CORE TLDs, present it to the NC 
and go on from there.  Proponents of other TLDs could propose 
WGs for their TLDs, as well.  In the interesting case where two 
groups propose the same TLD name, they will have to merge, and come 
to a consensus policy for the TLD (but note that the policy/name 
will *not* specify a registry...).

This model has several characteristics.  First of all, initially the
approval process will be slow, but as experience is gained it will
speed up considerably, because it will be possible to borrow a great
deal from already working charters.  Second, it will be biased
towards acceptance of the names, since it is the proponents of names
and policies that will create the WGs.  Third, it is an open,
transparent process modeled on the best-known Internet Standards
body.  (This is important, because one of the legal models keeping
ICANN out of anti-trust hot water is as a standards body.) Fourth,
and perhaps most important: *all* new TLDs, even gTLDs, will have
explicit written policies associated with them.  


================================================================

(*) Difficulty of enforcement of charters has frequently been
advanced as an argument against cTLDs.  However enforcement doesn't
have to be either perfect, or precede registration -- that is,
forfeiture of non-conforming registrations on presentation of a valid
complaint is an adequate remedy. 


-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain