Re: [wg-c] Schwimmer Post From Last Week

["Martin B. Schwimmer" <martys@interport.net>]

Well, this is a more constructrive thread than the "fun with Schwimmer"
heading Mueller wrote last year.

Proposed TLD - .gmbh
Restriction - you have to be a GmbH with a name materially identical to
your .gmbh registration (i.e. Porche International GmbH can register
porsche.gmbh, porsche-intl.gmbh).  You mail a simple (non-certified) copy
of an extract of the commercial registration to the registrar within 60
days of getting the DN.  
Registrars - identical procedure to .com accredidation (could be for profit
or non-profit)
Register - Lockheed or whoever else proves in a competitive bid that they
are good at being a register.  Experience in not losing races.com a plus
(could be for profit or non-profit)

Proposed TLD - .anon
Restriction - may not be used to offer goods or services.  unverifiable
contact info is not grounds for de-registration
Registrars - same as above
Register- same as above

Proposed TLD - .nom
Restriction - your name should be materially identical to the .nom
registration.  You mail a copy of proof of identity within 30 days of
getting the DN.
Registrars - same as above
Register - same as above

Proposed TLD - .wind
Restirction - none
Registrars - same as above
Register - same as above

Proposed TLD - .space
Restriction - none
Registrars - same as above
Register - same as above

Proposed TLD - .cpa
Restriction - name must either be materially identical to a CPA firm or
material identical to the name of a CPA.
Registrars - same as above
Register - same as above


I disagree with Mr Feld as to the point of early experimentation.  I think
specific TLDs will provide technical empirical data as much as a gTLD would
without as much of a risk of piracy.  I would not suggest we proceed with
.web because (1) that particular TLD is in dispute and (2) unrestricted
TLDs should not be explored until we have a sense of what UDRP and famous
mark protection will look like.

I think the reasons which favor the register/registrar dichotomy (namely
there really needs to be one register, but there can be competition among
registrars) hold for any TLD.  Wouldn't a specialized TLD with competitive
regsitrars offer both special service and the freedom from lock-in?


At 08:54 AM 12/21/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Last week, Martin Schwimmer posted some fruitful topics for the
>next stage of discussion, to which I gave my detailed responses,
>on possible mechanisms for future implememntation.  Is it not
>worthwhile to take up this discussion now?  In response to Martin's
>questions, I proposed some specific TLDs I'd like to see
>(a personal TLD and a generic TLD such as .web to compete with
>.com, rather than some other sort of specific TLD such as .inc or
>.xxx or .pol).  I also suggested three methods for selecting new
>registries,
>based on existing FCC practice and suggested that registries should
>be free to set the method for chosing registrars (or even to act as both
>registry
>and registrar exclusively).
>[As I said at the time, I would argu that .com represented a special case
>
>due to its unique position.  Their is no need to "open" other TLDs by
>mandating
>a registry/registrar separation, any more than there is a need to force
>CLECs
>to unbundle their facilities.  Alternatively, a mix of open and
>proprietary TLDs
>would provide a good market test: do users prefer specific services to
>the danger
>of lock-in.]
>
>Is there any interest in pursuing any of these discussion threads?
>
>Harold
>
>
>

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @