Re: [wg-c] Short Position Paper

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sat, Oct 09, 1999 at 12:10:12AM -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
[...]
> > No, I wasn't.  In fact, I was thinking in terms of exactly 5
> > registries being selected, one from each region, and some of them
> 
> So, you are thinking of institutionalizing the registry business? That
> appears to be what I read here...

I don't know what you mean by "institutionalize".  The proposal is 
intended to be the initial steps in a long process that will 
hopefully give us many TLDs of different kinds, but there doesn't 
seem much point in specifying a lot of long term process at this 
point.

What I am suggesting is that a single-digit-sized set of open gTLD
names be selected, and that one registry from each region be selected
in an separate, independent process that has nothing to do with the
selection of the names. 

This is for the first set of open gTLDs.  No more open gTLDs are 
authorized until we go through the next phase, which is to get a process 
for chartered TLDs in position:

At the same time (as soon as possible, that is) an RFP for
"chartered" or "sponsored" TLDs is published.  

The term "sponsored" TLD is new -- Mike Roberts used it in a message
to the "names" list that Jonathan Zittrain set up -- but it is fairly
descriptive.  I also use the term "restricted TLD".

One of the problems that people often mention in conjunction with
chartered/restricted TLDs is the enforcement problem.  One of the
possible solutions to the enforcement problem is that there be a
"sponsor" for the TLD -- for example, the National Congress of
American Indians might be a sponsor for Eric Brunner's proposed .naa
TLD; or the International Council of Museums might be the sponsor for 
a .museum TLD.  The sponsor wouldn't necessarily be tied to the registry,
though they would certainly be involved in the bidding for the
registry.

Registries would be companies that bid on running TLDs.  I don't care
about business models for registries / registry operators per se,
except that I don't want a registry to have monopoly control over a
TLD.

The RFP for chartered or sponsored TLDs, in my view, should be 
written in very broad terms, because at this point in time we don't 
have a clear idea of what a sponsor should be -- maybe INTA and the 
other TM organizations would like to get together to sponsor a 
".mark" TLD or something.

These proposals should go through an ICANN/DNSO approval process, 
which is yet to be determined.  After these issues are resolved, and 
a significant number of restricted TLDs are authorized, then we will 
have a lot of mechanism in place for TLD approval etc, and we can 
entertain more open gTLDs -- open gTLDs, in my view, are just a 
special case of restricted TLDs -- the case where the set of 
restrictions is close to empty.

So, in this proposal the number of registries is open-ended, as is 
the number of TLDs.  It doesn't seem to me that the registries are 
institutionalized.  But they are precluded from "owning" a TLD, 
unless there is an approved charter that allows it [that might 
happen under special circumstances, and I expect that such a charter 
would be hotly contested before it was approved.]

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