Re: [wg-c] Faisability question about so called "brand" gTLDs

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Mon, Aug 09, 1999 at 09:47:31PM +0200, Elisabeth PORTENEUVE wrote:
> This is a faisability question about so called "brand" gTLDs
> (or chartered gTLDs -- which might have restrictive registration policies).
> 
> I assume that gTLDs will be international (ad absurdum -- if not, they
> have to be requested under .us for Americans, .fr for France, ... etc).
> 
> Assume that a brand gTLD is set, say .law
> which suppose it is for lawyers, barrist, etc. Sounds pretty.
> 
> How anybody (registrar, registry, ISP, ...) can verify that
> Maitre H. Jaune, applying for a domain name "jaune.law"
> and claiming to have a degree from the Kerguelen University
> in French Southern Territories is real and not virtual-reality ?
> 
> I pretend that there is no way on the international level to verify
> any request for .law, and as it it will end up similar to .com,
> BUT much worst for consumers and lawyers -- all will be misleaded
> by .law TLD name.

This question has been debated at great length in the past, but the
answer is very simple -- it depends on the charter.  For example, the
charter for .law could be very elaborate, and create an international
approval board for membership in the .law TLD (this board would not
run the registry -- just accredit lawyers).  The board would work
with governments, law schools, legal associations, and so on. 
Accreditation could be very expensive -- it might cost $1000 to get a
domain in .law.  Consumers would in that case have a high degree of
confidence that registrations in .law meant something.  And such a
domain might have a very high prestige value.  Note that the
registrar job is very simple and liability free -- it just defers the
approval to the approving agency. 

On the other hand, the .law TLD might have a very loose charter, 
like .edu, where the approval process is much more prefunctory.  The 
major job of a WG for a .law TLD would be defining a meaningful and 
workable charter for the TLD.

Some charters are much easier than others -- .law is a hard one, .med
might be hard, as well.  .museum, I have been told, is an easier
case, because there is an existing international organization that
virtually all major museums belong to that could reasonably be
charged with approving registrations.  This means that the Sedona,
Arizona (USA) Rattlesnake and Roadkill museum probably wouldn't get a
domain in .museum, but that would be precisely the point -- the
charter of .museum restricts it to major museums. 

There are other TLDs for which verification would be extremely easy 
-- .ham, for amateur radio operators, would be very easy, because by 
definition a ham radio operator has a license granted by a 
government agency.  .nom would also be very easy to enforce -- you 
just compare the registrants name with the name of the TLD. (This 
would restrict names to legal names.  A more complex charter could 
deal with nicknames, but that would be much more difficult.)

There are two important general considerations: 1) perfection is not
required by any means -- .edu has a number of exceptions and mistakes
that have been made over time, but that does not negate the utility
of the .edu charter; and 2) enforcement does not need to be up front
-- you might not do any checking at all for registrations in a .PhD
TLD, but rather specify a set of dispute resolution rules that give
the domain to the individual with the superior claim.  The policy 
would in general just require a letter from the degree-granting 
institution, but such verifications are commonplace anyway, so the 
dispute resolution would be easy.  [In thinking about this 
particular example, though, I think that up front checking would be 
better -- that's an issue that would be hashed out in the WG.]

> If my reasonning is correct, the questions about gTLDs
> are about something challenging .com/.org/.net, which means
> nothing restrictive, and the subject became more specific.

A gTLD can be viewed as a special case of a chartered TLD, where the 
charter explicitly allows registrations by anyone for any purpose.  
You use the same approval mechanism.

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